| Revision as of 16:12, 21 May 2014 view sourceNyttend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators286,391 edits →User:Tutelary: Evidence?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:27, 8 January 2025 view source Primefac (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators209,504 edits →WP:NOTHERE behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from User: Astronomical17: re | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}} | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| </noinclude>{{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. | ||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
---------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| --><noinclude> | |||
| -->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}</noinclude> | |||
| ==Open tasks== | |||
| == Proposal to ban ] from political articles == | |||
| <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
| {{archivetop|result = JOttawa16 is topic banned from political articles. ] ]] 10:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| {{Admin tasks}} | |||
| :*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) | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
| *'''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 | |||
| == Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | |||
| 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) | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| {{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. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| **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) | |||
| **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) | |||
| **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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| 12 editors in favor of ban, only three editors against it, and that includes the editor in question, and the discussion has died out, so can we close this and institute the topic ban? ] (]) 04:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree, this has reached a conclusion. Please do. - ] (]) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No. Your censorship of topics you don't agree with is not cause to ban someone from writing about anything in that field ever again. ] (]) 13:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not censoring topics I don't agree with. I don't know or care about Canadian politics at all. What I do care about is articles that are written clearly to insult the opposition, by saying things such as people who don't like a politician are mentally ill, and people who clearly don't understand when ]. ] (]) 03:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archivebottom}} | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| == Category pages will be movable soon == | |||
| 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 ].}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... 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) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠]♠ ] 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) | |||
| == Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft == | |||
| :Interesting. Is there more info on this? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's ], ], and ]. ] (]) 14:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it. | |||
| 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) | |||
| It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so. | |||
| :Agree - should be restricted to admins. ] (]) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::So at the moment only ''inexperienced'' editors get the "right" (through taboo) to move categories? Extending to experiecned editors sounds good.{{Smiley}} All the best: ''] ]'', <small>23:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::(Sigh). Inexperienced editors do all sort of things they shouldn't do; that does not mean that they have a right to do them. It just means that we don't ] them too hard while they learn the ropes. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:34, 14 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) | |||
| The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page. | |||
| *I 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 became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of. | |||
| 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) | |||
| *::::{{ping|NE Ent}} Same question for you as for Green Giant below. Why do you want to give editors a tool to perform a task which they are not supposed to perform anyway?<br />How would this help anyone? --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:02, 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) | |||
| ::{{U|BethNaught}}, I would support a new user group just for this right but my point was that all of these groups are effectively trusted users until they give a reason not to be trusted. It makes no sense to reserve it just for admins when really categories are a content-building activity. The obvious solution to vandalism would be protection in the same way articles can be protected. '''<span style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em"><font color="#0F0">]</font> (])</span>''' 20:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I see where you are coming from, and on further consideration I don't believe there would be any ''danger'' in assigning the right to already trusted user groups. I guess I'm just the sort of person who likes to keep unrelated things separate. Given that categories are content building, I would therefore be happy for the right to be assigned to autopatrolled users (and perhaps template editors), but the other groups you mentioned are more about maintenance, which makes them a bit distant for me. ] (]) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Green Giant}} Moving categories is not a ] issue, and has never been in the 8 years I have edited Misplaced Pages. They should be moved only after a discussion at ], or (for a few speedy criteria) after listing at ]. That's not because of any technical restrictions; it's because changes to categories affect many articles, so prior consensus is required before renaming or depopulating any existing category. | |||
| ::::Giving this tool to admins will not allow them to go moving categories around without prior consensus. It will merely allow them to implement CFD decisions; but the vast majority of CFD decisions are implemented by bots, so in practice this is a tool which will be used 95% of the time by bots. | |||
| ::::Please can you explain why exactly you want a wider group of editors to be given a tool to do something which they aren't supposed to do anyway, because of its ramifications? --] <small>] • (])</small> 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}}, the essence of this debate is whether the right should be just for admins (which is unlikely to gain consensus) or should anyone else be allowed it. The sheer fact that the issue is being discussed here rather than at the village pump is perhaps a sign of the times. I disagree with just giving it to admins and template editors, because it has precious little to do with just templates and affects everything we do. You mentioned WP:BOLD as not involving moving categories but in fact it encourages caution for all non-article namespaces, not just categories. ] in particular says "''if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns ]), propose changes at ]''". That doesn't mean that every category change needs to go to CFD, just the controversial ones. Like you yourself say further down, what if someone creates a category with a spelling error? It has happened to me sometimes. Wouldn't it be easier to just be able to move the category in a matter of seconds, rather than listing it at Categories for discussion/Speedy, where requests sometimes take days depending on the admins workload. Certainly I agree that this right shouldn't be handed out like candy to just any auto-confirmed editor, but equally let's not restrict this solely to admins. Beth's idea of a separate user group is the best way to go. The two most trusted groups after admins would be filemovers (373) and template editors (75 excluding two bots) (although at least 23 are also file movers), so why not have a third similar group? Let it be granted by an admin at ] if an applicant meets reasonably stringent criteria. '''<span style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em"><font color="#0F0">]</font> (])</span>''' 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Green Giant}} I am not implacably opposed to the idea of a special group like the one you mentioned, tho I do question whether its utility for the very small number of legitimate uses outweighs the risk that it becomes a way of bypassing the consensus-forming process at CFD. I think it would be great to have a wider discussion about this.<br />But the immediate issue facing us is that the categ-move facility will be rolled out on 22 May, only 8 days. As set up, it will be available to all auto-confirmed users; as patched by Jack, it would be available to admins only. So we have a choice about what happens next: roll it out to a more limited set than you would like, and discuss extending it, or roll it out to a much wider set. The option of holding off pending consensus is not on the table.<br />Woukdn't it be much better to ''start'' with the more limited change, and then consider the wider change? --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree that initially it should be just admins because of the absurdly short notice (or lack of) by the developers. However, call me a pessimist but where would we raise the issue of extending the right to non-admins? Certainly not here and the village pump proposals board is just a talking shop where any decent idea winds up in the archives somewhere. Once the dust settles, it is highly unlikely any proposals to extend the right will be successful. As an aside, I note that apart from Jack, very little effort seems to have gone into raising the issue over at Meta, because this affects every project, not just en-wiki. Having had a quick look through several other village pumps/cafes, I don't think I've seen any discussions outside of en-wiki and commons. Additionally, is there any chance of someone archiving some of the older posts because this board is absurdly large right now (getting close to 500k). '''<span style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em"><font color="#0F0">]</font> (])</span>''' 00:53, 14 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) | |||
| Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page? | |||
| === Category moves: this is looking bad === | |||
| A reply above by {{ping|Jackmcbarn}} says "". The bug link is ]. | |||
| <small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]? | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| :As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] | ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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? | |||
| :The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::Think of this, please: The editors who put their hours into ] are saying that this is a bad idea to implement without restrictions and this whole process is being rushed. This tool has not been created because those involved in category renaming ''asked for it''. Editors who know the ramifications of sloppy or whimsical category moves, made without consensus, are saying, "This will not work out well." Why is their experience being discounted? Can you imagine telling the folks who work on the main page that any admin could make an article a featured article? Or, say, let's just eliminate ] discussions and let's just let admins delete whatever articles they feel don't "fit" within Misplaced Pages? Of course, there would be objections from the editors who know these areas well and work on maintaining some standards and fairness about the process. This tool would bypass all discussion by regular editors on whether these moves are a wise idea. The impact of this on WikiProjects alone could involve a massive clean-up. | |||
| :::::: I don't mean to sound alarmist, it's just that this tool throws out a long-standing consensus process at Misplaced Pages in one swift move. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{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. | |||
| == Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article == | |||
| This discussion-forking is no way to reach consensus. --] <small>] • (])</small> 18:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :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) | |||
| | status = Venue corrected | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::Yes. ] (]) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: How can this be true? How can the introduction of a new tool be forced on the Misplaced Pages community without considering the impact it will have or listening to the community's concerns? This is really crazy, ]! <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: If there were consensus here to make it admin-only, they'd be fine with that. Since we're divided, they're not going to change anything yet. ] (]) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (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) | |||
| **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) | |||
| | result = Now at ]. — ] ] 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think that having a discussion proposing limiting something to admins should be on ] ''not'' in the admin secret hidey-hole club treehouse basement. All the best: ''] ]'', <small>23:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| }} | |||
| ::these actions are already limited to admins by longstanding consensus. Editors, nor admins, are not allowed to rename a category except in a very small set of circumstances, and if someone did rename through copy/paste they would be reverted. This tool simply makes it easier. I want to address a point Liz made above, which is that no-one asked for this feature - on that I disagree, the ability to move categories and thus keep their history has long been requested and I'm very glad we'll have it as we'll be able to see the whole history of a category including renames which previously we couldn't, so thanks to the devs for making this happen - however we have existing norms that any such moves happen at CFD or CFD/S, and giving users permissions to do this while skipping those venues throws out longstanding consensus. Since there seems to be a push to roll this out we must remember en wiki is not the only one affected, and there may be other patches that need to roll at the same time so I see no reason to block the rollout, just a suggestion that permissions be limited - for now- and then we can in parallel have a deeper discussion about who else should have these permissions and when, if ever, users should be allowed to use them.--] (]) 23:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ], I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - ] (]) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You should report this at ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Who exactly is "they"? | |||
| ::Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. ] (]) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why is the default assumption that a powerful new tool should be handed to everyone, without a consensus to do so? --] <small>] • (])</small> 01:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::::"They" are probably the sysadmins, and the default assumption was that category moving is no more powerful than page moving, so it should be distributed to the same users that pagemove is. And to be fair, they're not wrong from their perspective; it's only the bots that make it powerful here, not the tool itself. ] ]] 01:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Correct on both accounts, {{u|Writ Keeper}}. ] (]) 01:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|Writ Keeper}} {{ping|Jackmcbarn}} I disagree strongly with that default assumption, because a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different. | |||
| :::::::But I am even more concerned about the apparent determination to ignore the huge weight of evidence in this discussion that those who do the greatest amount of work with categories foresee huge problems arising from wide deployment of this tool. When a theoretical perspective about a tool discounts the practical effects of its deployment, we are in trouble. Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now? | |||
| :::::::The bots do valuable job of fixing the minor errors in categorisation which would otherwise leave category entries pointing to redirects. This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless. --] <small>] • (])</small> 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} {{tq|"a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different."}} The only reason that's the case is because of our bots. From the developers' perspective, our bots aren't a reason to change the software. {{tq|Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now?}} The reason category pages were immovable for a long time is because they wanted to avoid confusing users by letting them think they were moving the category when they were in fact only moving its description page. {{tq|This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless.}} As I pointed out before, vandals can abuse the bots by cut-and-paste moving a category, and the bots will do just as much damage that way. ] (]) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{ping|Jackmcbarn}} It's ''not'' just because of the bots. The bots add an extra layer of vulnerability, but don't let them obscure the underlying difference, which is why we have the bots.<br />If I move an article or a template or a Misplaced Pages page, a link to the old title takes me via a redirect to the page as it was; the only change is to the title, but in every other respect the page looks the same. That is not the case with a category, where we don't use hard redirects. If I have the tools and the inclination to move a category page, then when I visit the old title I do ''not'' see what I would have seen before the move. I see the same list of pages, but not the parent categories, the explanatory text, the table of contents etc. If I follow the soft redirect, I see the Toc, parent categs etc ... but not the list of pages. The bots exist to bridge that gap.<br />Once again, the consequences of this are well understood by the editors who regularly participate at CFD, and ''all'' of those CFD regulars who have posted here (including non-admins) agree that this tool should be restricted. It is frustrating to find that all expertise is being ignored :( --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I think this is a great new possibility. I am not an admin, and one time I was very active on Cfd and many times wanted to be able to move categories. | |||
| : Nevertheless, I am strongly convinced it is a really bad idea to implement this feature and not restrict it to a small group of users. I foresee a big mess and serious disruption from all kinds of impetuous and/or tendentious editors, as well as vandals. I think that either this should not be implemented at this time, or restricted to admins until such time as a broader discussion establishes which other users may be allowed access to this feature. | |||
| : I strongly agree with BrownHairedGirl and disagree with Jackmcbarn: developers have no right to implement a feature while there is no consensus who should have access to it, unless it is restricted to the largest cross-section everybody agrees upon, which in this case is admins. ] (]) 08:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Debresser}} Actually, they do. Developers aren't bound by community consensus. If we establish a consensus to restrict the tool, they'll restrict it, but they don't have to do anything now. ] (]) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Unclear policy == | |||
| :I'm reminded of the scene in Raiders of the Lost ark - "our top men are on it?" "Who?" "Top... Men." The arrival of a new permission implicitly indicates to the user that this is an acceptable action to take - but we have no policy around user-led category moves. It's almost as if 'delete' were added to all editors toolboxes without the attendant training and infrastructure for its use. As has already been noted, on en.wp, no regular user has ever had the right to move a category, and now it will show up their menu as a new toy to play with. This is a bad idea, and I disagree that the sysadmin's position is reasonable since rollout of an IT system change must take account of the local technological (eg bots) and social (eg norms) context. That wasn't done here. I'm sure they are acting in good faith but I would also be surprised if this was the only wiki where regular users weren't permitted to muck about renaming categories, etc. we don't need to establish a new consensus here that only admins can move categories, this is LONG standing precedent and we have policy documentation and years of evidence to prove it, so if this must roll plz restrict to admins as that aligns with the current consensus of who can actually move categories today. The fact that a few editors here are grumbling does nothing to upend that long standing consensus.--] (]) 10:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::There's a lot of actions that are technically permitted but aren't allowed by our rules, like sticking editors on ] unilaterally. Any misuse of this tool is a social problem, not a technological one. ] (]) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | result = Asked and answered. — ] ] 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Jackmcbarn}} Misplaced Pages has technical barriers to many other social problems, such as a bar on IPs creating pages, and on non-admins deleting pages, and on editors using rollback without first seeking permission. | |||
| }} | |||
| :::There is an ''existing'' technical barrier to category moves. You are entitled to the view that the barrier shouldn't exist, but a change requires a community consensus rather than a unilateral imposition by the devs. --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| If an RfC about ''policy'' -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists. | |||
| === No consensus === | |||
| Last I recall, Devs don't implement something unless there is ] to do so. Doubt that? Go have a look at how long it took for Rollback to be implemented for anyone besides admins. (Including several discussions.) | |||
| For disclosure this is about ] on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and ], about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how ''absolutely wild'' it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, ''']''', and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are. | |||
| So the standard SOP afaik, is that they add a new tool to admins (user-right group: sysop), and '''IF THERE IS CONSENSUS''', then that tool ''may'' be allowed to a broader user-group (whether to an existing group like autoconfirmed, or a new one like how rollbacker or template editor were created after a consensual discussion). | |||
| I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. ] (]) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So if we follow the past model, then this ability should be given to admins if the Devs so deem, and a consensual discussion would be required before granting it to a larger userbase than that. | |||
| :I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. ] (]) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc. | |||
| ::This isn't just my opinion, it's Misplaced Pages policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of ] (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously ''so'' important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (]). ] (]) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time. | |||
| :::There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. ] (]) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*:Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? ]] 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*::I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you should move this complaint to ]. You will get better response there. ] (]) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think {{U|Liz}}'s comments are spot on.--] (]) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::"More" response is not always a better response. And I think we addressed Gnomingstuff's question, as much as I understood what they were asking about. It was pretty vague. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Continued subject of a sockpuppet investigation, and request for neutral third party intervention == | |||
| If someone else has a different view of wikipedia history or policy, I'm all ears, but as far as I know, that's how things have been done for some time. | |||
| I am posting this here because I need advice. A couple of weeks ago I was involved in an edit dispute on a contentious topic page, I noticed that an editor had made a serious of edits which seemed to me to be clear violations of NPOV. This was a very senior and experienced editor. I left a message on their talk page regarding it, I was not aggressive or unreasonable. A week later a sockpuppet investigation was initiated by that user into me, claiming that I have sockpuppet accounts, to accounts I have never heard of. They also claimed that I was being aggressive. Despite it initially being set to close by a checkuser, it was re-opened when 'new evidence' was given by the aforementioned user, making claims such as that my 'excessive use of commas' is similar to the other users, and other claims which I see are very much as 'looking for things to find'. Since, other editors have joined the investigation, these users all have edit histories which focus almost entirely on the aforementioned contentious topic area. I feel that all it will take is a rogue admin who also shares the POV (with regard to the contentious topic) and I will be unjustly blocked or somesuch. I am very anxious about this because I have put a lot of work into wikipedia since joining a few weeks ago, and I feel like these editors are targetting me. Is it reasonble of me to ask that there be some guarantee here that the admins, checkusers, and such, who oversee my investigation have a mostly unrelated to this contentious topic area editing interest? I will divulge the details if so, I just want to keep this as brief as possible while I broach this question. Many many thanks ] (]) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| And note, this is a functionality that I have been wanting to see for some time. I have never liked that we do cut-n-paste moves when implementing a category move. (I seem to recall that once-upon-a-time we could move category pages '''IF''' we removed all the category members first. But that was deprecated in some update in the long past.) | |||
| :Hello, ], | |||
| :I have a couple of thoughts. First, just chill. Many editors are accused of being sockpuppets, I know I was accused of being a sockpuppet when I first started editing. Your talk about a "rogue admin who shares a POV" is assuming bad faith, especially since the first checkuser who commented cleared you of being a sockpuppet. | |||
| :Yes, filing this SPI was probably unnecessary but Icewhiz has been a prolific sockmaster so some longtime editors working in certain subject areas are often trying to identify potential Icewhiz socks they might have created. I'm sure that this report is unnerving to you but it sounds like this event has sent you down a rabbithole that leads you to believe that there is some conspiracy against you. If I were you, I'd a) stop attacking the editor who filed the report, b) stop commenting on the SPI entirely and c) trust that our checkusers know what they are doing and if they find no evidence (which they haven't), they will freely state that there is no connection between editors. | |||
| :Also, in case you decide to stay as a regular editor, know that it is important how you "correct" other editors, especially ones that are much more experienced than you. This doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes but you called the other editor's edits "vandalism" and implied they had some sort of bias. Other editors criticized your comments to them. When other editors come to the defense of an editor being accused of misconduct, you should question whether or not your perception was correct and, if it wasn't, you should apologize. Consider that maybe you were being "unreasonable" and be more tactful and less accusatory when you bring up another editor's editing on their User talk page. This is just my 2 cents. Make that 25 cents. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi. First of all thank-you very much for your reply. I am and have been considerably stressed about this. Being accused so zealously of something which I am totally innocent of is a really nasty feeling. When I was referring to a 'rogue admin', to clarify I mean hypothetically, I am worried about this happening; there is no admin I have in mind. I definitely have not assumed good faith of the editor who initiated the investigation, since it seems so obvious to me that this is a targeted act. I understand how that might sound unreasonable, but it is how they have worded things, being so sure of themselves that I am guilty, and how they have drawn these absurd points of evidence and stated them as if they are damning. I'm sorry but I can't help but be a little emotional about it, my gut tells me that it is targeted so I did not assume good faith. I will stop commenting on the SPI, and take a big step back. I have said all that I wanted to say now anyway. I trust the checkusers, its just the 'new evidence' that really irked me, and I felt that I needed to reach out to someone about it, especially since most of the other editors who have commented on the SPI have the editing history I mentioned - but this is the point which I, as you mention, should in particular hold back on as it is accusative to the editors. Again, I will take a big step back and let the checkusers handle it. Thank-you again for taking the time to reply ] (]) 09:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Humans sharing accounts with machines== | |||
| And yes, category moves ''can'' be done ], but due to the large number of page changes to the category members which is sometimes needed, ] is the typical venue for discussing a category move. | |||
| My apologies, as I'm certain this has already been addressed and I've neglected to keep-up with the latest.<br/> | |||
| If a human ("Editor ABC") is writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by process of cognition, but is also writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by an LLM (as opposed to merely machine-translating thoughts which originated in their own mind), are we inclined to view this as a violation of our ] policy in that both the human and the LLM are contributing using the same account? Or is the dependence of the LLM on the human to actually post its output to the Talk page sufficient to overcome any concerns about sharing? ] (]) 20:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There have been several discussions about LLMs, but I don't remember this specific issue being addressed. I would say, as I think about just about everything, that if the editor is upfront and transparent about what they are doing then most things should be allowed, but that if the editor tries to hide things or is sneaky and underhand in any way they should be blocked. ] (]) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I know there has been a lot of talk but I don't recall anything regarding what you specifically asked. If I understand you correctly anyways... If both talk page posts are coming from the same logged in user and is signed as such, I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between what I actually say versus what an LLM spits out as a response to a prompt generated by that same user. However, that user would be held accountable for both their direct statements, as well as those generated through a LLM, and there is no real excuse that "I didn't mean that" when they posted it, regardless of how the actual text/words were generated. I guess the other way LLM could be used is say to take someone else's post/reply and feed that into an LLM and ask the LLM to generate a response. But again, not sure how big of an issue that is, as long as they're both being attributed to the same person behind the post. They just cannot use some sort of shared account principle as a defense. ] ] 22:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd put it this way. If someone is just posting content randomly generated by LLMs, I don't think we need to worry about SHAREDACCOUNT to block them. If someone is asking a LLM to generate something and than posting the output, it's silly to claim that the LLM is somehow 'sharing' the account. ] (]) 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Wouldn't this essentially grant a form of personhood to AI models, something they don't quite deserve yet? I doubt that a dependence on the human to post output is going to be a constraint for much longer. Also, in practice I'm not sure it is going to be possible to distinguish between Editor ABC and augmented-human Editor ABC. I can't even do that with my own stuff where I've noticed that I conveniently forget that it was the GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet copilot that came up with a better solution than me. ] (]) 11:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 43.249.196.179 (again) == | |||
| What I think is not being understood by those who are not regularly involved with categories is that the name of the category is much more important than the name of an article (for example). If you read over ], you may note that the name is often the only way to determine inclusion criteria for article membership in a category. And as well, as the main purpose for categories is navigation, category names need to be clear. | |||
| See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| And categories do not allow for referencing, so they rely on the references of the member articles. So category names NEED to be neutral, unbiased. | |||
| :] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors. | |||
| ::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| And now couple this with the fact that categories tend to be the most unwatched pages, and you have a recipe for disaster here waiting to happen. | |||
| : Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attacks by ] == | |||
| And so if you look at the discussion above, you may notice that those who are active in CFD are the ones who are most concerned about this. As they are obviously the ones who not only presumably know and understand category policy, but also are the ones who regularly deal with implementation, and further, who regularly have to deal with cleaning up the messes of well-meaning (and sometimes not-so-well-meaning) category editors. | |||
| {{Atop|The OP needs to let go and move on.--] (]) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I was to report this here. | |||
| I'm still waiting for a way to block hotcat and twinkle from malfeasant editors for these and other reasons. There are several editors whose prolific category creation continually create a lot of work and headaches for those at CFD. And if this is implemented, this will be a huge mess. | |||
| The editor in question: {{Userlinks|Remsense}} | |||
| This simply should be a separate user-right, just like template editor. And the community needs to come to consensus on who should have this right and how it should be granted. | |||
| * Claiming a user "can't read": . Clear violation of ]. | |||
| This is the way we've been doing these things, there is no reason to not do this in this case as well. - <b>]</b> 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Calling a user a "scoundrel": . Clear violation of ]. | |||
| * Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: . Clear violation of ]. | |||
| * Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation . Clear violation of ] and ]. | |||
| ] (]) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at ] (]) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per ]. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::(For the record, I will not be participating in any ] process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You were ''not'' instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". ] (]) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : IP, just ]. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you ] per ], as you haven't shown ''sanctionable and repeated'' misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reply to|Johnuniq}} {{tqi|After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here.}} What does that diff have to do with anything? My complaint at ] was about Remsense's 3RR violation. My complaint here is about their personal attacks. I was directed to report that here. | |||
| :Sure, I'll give you a different view of Misplaced Pages history and policy: | |||
| :Anyone can edit. The default state is that anyone can do anything, unless we specifically find that it's necessary to restrict that. For those who weren't around and haven't heard the stories, it was originally the case that anyone could delete pages. It used to be that non-autoconfirmed users could move pages. We've restricted a few processes in response to real problems, but we have generally avoided doing so merely for speculative problems. | |||
| :We don't preëmptively protect anything—much less entire namespaces!—based on some editor's speculation that there might be vandalism (vandalism, that to judge from the above comments, will simultaneously affect huge numbers of articles and also be completely invisible because nobody's watching the cat pages). The system of protecting ''after'' a concrete problem has been demonstrated seems to be working pretty well for today's featured article, so I don't really see why ] really needs to be handled any differently, and I certainly don't see why we should protect thousands and thousands of them just because there ''might'' be a problem. ] (]) 20:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} This is not about creating a new protection; it is about the devs imposing the removal of a protection which already exists.<br />The risk of not just of vandalism, but of good faith actions where editors don't understand the consequences, in a namespace where pages are rarely watched. With so few watchers, who is going to monitor the hundreds of thousands of category pages for any problems which might occur?<br />Unilateral bold moving of categories is something which editors should not be doing anyway. We have a well-established consensus-forming process at ], and a speedy one for uncontroversial actions at ]. Why create a tool to bypass these processes? And why on earth is being implemented with out a consensus to do so? --] <small>] • (])</small> 23:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::This discussion ''is'' about creating new protection. Previously, deficient technical design prevented people from doing what they should have been able to do from the beginning. The technical problem is being fixed. Now we should be going back to the normal default for this community: anyone can edit. | |||
| :::As for "without a consensus", there are 800+ WMF wikis, and many, many thousands of MediaWiki installations all over the world. Fixing this bug affects thousands of communities. The views of some people at just one of them should not prevent everyone else in the world from having the bug fixed. (Personally, I'm quite looking forward to this for use at a private wiki; it will enable me to clean up a minor mess left by someone else without having to agree to an admin bit there.) ] (]) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This discussion is not about the other 800+ Wikis; it is about en.wikipedia, which isn any case is by far the largest wikimedia project. | |||
| ::::Whether you regard the existing setup as a bug or a feature, it is one which has defined how categories are maintained. There are a significant number of editors who do have posted here to say that the "fix" poses significant problems for em.wp procedures, which is that in the case of category moving, the normal default is ''not'' for editors to act unilaterally. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I thought I'd chime in here as a non-administrator. Currently the consensus-established policy is that regular editors should not move categories (via copy-paste or any other method). I don't see the point in giving every editor access to a tool that policy forbids them to use. The burden of establishing consensus is on those changing the status quo, and without consensus the status quo should be maintained. Therefore, the rights to use this tool should either be limited to administrators and bots (who are implicitly trusted enough not to use them to circumvent policy) or not given to any user groups until consensus is established to do so. --] (<small>]</small>) 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No, the current "policy" is that copy-paste "moves", no matter what the page, violate the CC-BY-SA license, and that, as a result of cat pages being developed separately, and therefore having strange limitations, no other method of moving is ''possible'' for non-admins. There is no "consensus-established policy" (I notice that you have provided no link to this alleged policy) that says that it's a bad idea for non-admins to be able to move category pages. ] (]) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqi|If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute.}} For pursuing enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is that? | |||
| *Another non-admin (and former CFD regular) in favour of great caution here. I'd be very happy for the right to be admin-only, & might be pursuaded for a very small group of others to be given it. But as I understand it, this will make things easier, and there is no vast backlog for CFD-agreed moves anyway, so I'd wait to see if there is a problem before trying to solve it. Agree with ] all the way. ] is completely missing several points: nobody watches the category ''pages'' mainly because they are very rarely ''edited''. But many people use the categories all the time. Anybody who has spent any time at CFD will have seen many manic/enthusiastic nuisance category creators and won't doubt for a second that if they could move categories they certainly would. The whole point about categories is that they are connected up to other categories in structures that have often been the subject of protracted and fierce discussion, which can often only be traced through "what links here" - there isn't even a record of CFD debates on the talk page. ] (]) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:I favor great caution, too. I also favor not assuming that our editors can't handle this, especially once a few "hot button" categories get move-protected. <br> I've got a bunch of cat pages on my watchlist, but you're missing the practical point: if the cat gets moved ''and every single article in that cat gets an edit to place it in the new category name'', then one move could turn up on watchlists for dozens or even hundreds of pages. That means that cat moves are likely to be ''far'' more noticeable than regular page moves, even if absolutely zero people are watching the cat page itself. ] (]) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I am in general agreement with those who have written above in favour of caution: ], ], and others. Yes, I'm an admin, and yes, I close a lot of discussions at ]. Users could try to argue that I'm just trying to protect the "sphere" where I do a lot of admin work, but really that's not my concern at all. (Frankly, I would love for the load at CFD to be lightened, but I'm afraid this would NOT accomplish it. Quite the opposite, I'm guessing!) My concerns have been well set out by the others above. I do think it is telling that those who tend to be more involved in category editing and organizations are the ones pushing for caution, whether or not those editors are admins. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Just a note that there is a vote going on about this same issue ...some of the same concerns being voiced. I didn't realize that this feature change would affect all of Wikimedia. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 14:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yes, as I and other people said last week, this change affects 800+ wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation plus many thousands of non-WMF wikis, both public and private. This bug fix is really ''not'' about the English Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{reply to|Phil Bridger}} {{tqi|You were not instructed to report this here.}} Yes I was. {{tqi|The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if".}} And the antecedent of that "if" is satisfied, as the above diffs show. | |||
| === Only admins to move categories? Really? === | |||
| With the massive backlogs that exist at other admin-esque pages, isn't this over-kill? If users can move pages, then why not categories too? I doubt many people will even be aware they '''can''' move categories straight away. Leave it as it's planned to be, and if it all goes tits-up, round my house with your pitchforks and effigies. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I suppose we can write an admin-bot to move-protect all categories (or, perhaps, all categories over 1-3 days old). Or, alternatively, disable all the category-rename-handling bots until they are also programmed to '''revert''' improper moves, rather than follow them. — ] ] 21:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@Lugnuts, giving all editors, including overenthusiastic newbies with idiosyncratic ideas about categorization (]), this facility is likely to increase the workload on those who repair disruption to categorization and hence make backlogs worse. I'd support move-protecting all (reader-side) categories more than a few days old. ] (]) 05:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{reply to|Codename_AD}} {{tqi|DROPTHESTICK}} The last retort of someone who knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy. | |||
| I'm not sure how attractive a vandalism target category moves would be, but it should be simple enough to disable them for non-admins by adding a <moveonly> entry for the Category: prefix to the ]. That's a bit of a hack, of course, and would only work if Category: pages can only be moved to other titles in the Category: namespace (can they?), but it might be worth considering as a stop-gap while a broader consensus is figured out for who should ultimately be able to perform these moves. ] (]) 04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Just noting that that would also allow template editors and account creators to move pages as well as they both have the <tt>tboverride</tt> userright. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, good point. ] (]) 05:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not necessarily a bad thing or reason not to add it to the blacklist, just a note that there will be an unintended consequence. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 11:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed. ] (]) 12:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqi|you haven't shown ''sanctionable'' and ''repeated'' misconduct on your diffs}} Yes, I have. How many more examples of Remsense's misconduct do you need? Give a number. ] (]) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed topic ban for 2 editors == | |||
| {{archivetop|Enough. Please find something productive to do. Please. ] ] (]) 16:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| With this blatant administrator abuse and corruption, it's no wonder Misplaced Pages is perceived as a joke by the public nowadays. Circling the wagons to shield a user from rule enforcement and cover for each other's admin abuse. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Why do you have such a strong interest in protecting Remsense from Misplaced Pages's rules? Is Remsense part of your "clique"? ] (]) 20:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Background'''. | |||
| Recent threads at AN/I: and . Discussion at Jimbo: . | |||
| * More examples: ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * Ownership issues | |||
| *'''Blocked'''. For the disruption and personal attacks above and at ], I have blocked 2001:569:7FEA:2900:0:0:0:0/64 for a month. Pinging {{u|Johnuniq}}: will blocking this /64 do it, John? ] | ] 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| '''Proposed bans for topics on ] and ]''' | |||
| *:{{re|Bishonen}} My provider gives me /56 and leases of /48 are not unheard of at other providers. ] (]) 01:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===First nominee=== | |||
| *:I haven't even given anyone a reason to like me that much, so this kind of result only makes sense if I'm demonstrably the duller thorn in the community's side. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 04:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|Strong support for a topic ban for the topics ] and also for ]. Potočnik, formerly PRODUCER, is topic banned from making any edits on any page on Misplaced Pages, with the exception of an appeal on ] or ], related to Jews or Communism. To be clear, these are two separate topics and this topic ban should not in any way be construed to only be applicable in topics about Jews and Communism together. This topic ban will last until removed by community consensus. Enforcement may be made by escalating blocks.--v/r - ]] 19:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| *::If anything new turns up, let me or Bishonen know. I am closing this now. ] (]) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] - Previously named Producer. Original creator of the article ] | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''Strong support (] solely) ''' 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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. ] (]) 20:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::He was warned on his ] with examples of diffs ] (]) 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ban and block if this is shown to be copyvio. ] (]) 20:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support.''' The evidence that Potočnik plagiarised an antisemitic source without attribution is indisputable. This is about as gross a violation of WP:NPOV policy as one could imagine, and I find it difficult to believe that Potočnik could do so without being aware that it would be seen as such. Frankly, I am having difficulty understanding why this was done in the first place, given that the article was plainly going to be controversial, and accordingly subject to close scrutiny. One has to conclude that Potočnik either lacks the competence and understanding of elementary policy required to edit in such sensitive areas, or understands policy full well, but chooses to ignore it. Either way, we can manage well enough without such 'contributions' on these topics. ] (]) 21:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support.''' I would also support an indefinite block for from editing altogether, copying content from extremist websites without attribution should not be tolerated.] (]) 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' -(of a topic ban, for Producer only). This user CREATED the article, an embarrassment to wikipedia, and has demonstrated a heavy ownership of it since. For him to claim that he had no knowledge of the content of the article's origins is outrageous. He refused to listen to any and all outside criticism of an obviously troubled article. He obviously is incapable of providing NPOV on any subjects related to Judaism.. he (supposedly) copied content from a strictly anti-Semitic website, and then continued to edit war and initiate massive conflicts when editors tried to neutralize or, god forbid, actually ''remove'' the inaccurate content, as proven per what USchick provided above. Even if he didn't copy the content (I'm at odds as to who would have, if not), his ignorance of the concepts of consensus and the 3RR demonstrate the need for a topic ban. ] ] ] 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. .--] (]) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's already been ], deriving from problematic editing on an older article; the conclusion was that they are not the same person. Meatpuppetry remains a strong possibility, of course, but having reviewed the evidence, I'm doubtful of the strength of the case to be made, beyond suspicion. ] ] 23:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Snow, I'd really appreciate your participation in the discussion of this.--] (]) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for POV-pushing, pure and simple. ]] 23:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' – Given his almost certain knowing creation of an article based on anti-Jewish sources, and consistent intellectual dishonesty, I cannot see any future edits by him edits in these areas that would be productive. ] — ] 04:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. POV pushing, tendentious editing, dishonesty about sources, and other disruptive behavior. He would be lucky to get off with a mere topic ban. A block or site ban would also be appropriate for someone with this history. ] (]) 05:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - the formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, ] (]) 06:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --] (]) 07:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] ?? ] (]) 10:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per warnings by User {{user|Jehochman}} to PRODUCER (as he was known at that time)/Potocnik: '''1''' "Do you have a connection with ]? I find it odd that both of you show up with the same ] dispute. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" ; '''2''' "In any case, your account is blocked indefinitely, not for the sock or meat puppetry which is a strong possibility and also good grounds to block, but for tendentious POV pushing. The account will remain blocked until there is a discussion about how to prevent further recurrences...] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)" ; '''3''' "...The following diffs show inappropriate editing. Should you accumulate more examples of a similar nature, you may be subject to a sanction...] <sup>]</sup> 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" . Thank you, ] (]) 08:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' a ban on anything to do with Jews, Judaism, or anti-semitism for reasons given by many editors above. ] (]) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. The admin Jehochman acted prematurely and excessively, and their conduct should be examined closely to determine whether they should continue to wield the mop. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. ] (]) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). ] (]) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' As per obvious anti-semitic POV, evident on the creation of a ] article copied from an anti-semitic source. ] (]) 12:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' procedurally as one-sided. There has been ugly, nasty behavior around this article and related AfDs over the months and it would take the Arbitration Committee to look into '''everyone'''s behavior to determine who is at fault and who needs to be pried out of the topic area. Atlantictire , is one from the "other side" that come to mind. This is not the type of thing where one's wiki-enemies should be able to propose and vote on topic bans. ] (]) 14:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is a great ally to Potočnik and Director. I would encourage him to read the essay on ]'s page. I don't have a problem saying things that are true, and this positively nails Tarc and his kind.--] (]) 18:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I am an ally to no one, other than to those who may be railroaded by blood-boiling hysterics and lynch mob mentalities. If either of these editors, or others, have run afoul of this project's policies, then the project has the means to determine this and act accordingly. At no time, throughout any of this, have your screaming antics produced anything but disruption and distraction. If the article is to be deleted and/or if editors are to be sanctioned, it will be due to the diligence of sane heads and sound minds taking the lead. ] (]) 18:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy New Year! == | |||
| ::::Tarc—I responded to you on the Talk page of Jimbo Wales. This was on April 29, 2014. You are saying there I am assuming those thoughts represent your true feelings, that editors are ''"playing up the victim card"'' and that this is a ''"front in their war"''. ] (]) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=Happy New Year to all editors on this project! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Misplaced Pages! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. <small>Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do.</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Happy New Year to the whole English Misplaced Pages community! ] (]) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. ] ] 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The most I can muster, to all editors, is after 2024, I hope all of your 2025s are better than you expect them to be! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::::Intersting. Tarc, who are "they," and what do you mean by them playing up the victim card "in real life"? What "victim card" are you talking about? ] (]) 19:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025 == | |||
| ::::::Per request of Jehochman (]), I retracted & redacted that comment, as can be verified by how the thread appeared ]. It was a heat-of-the-moment thing that added no value to the discussion. ] (]) 19:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well OK, but what did you mean? You're sorta begging the question. I take it you understand the kind of implication of the word "they" in this context? ] (]) 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, I am well-aware of what you are implying . "They" is a 3rd-person personal pronoun, and it was used by me as such. Nothing more. ] (]) 19:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If an editor is considerate enough to strike something, please don't bring it up again. We want people to recognize if they "go over the top" and back down. If they do, that is good, and the matter should not be raised again. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Oh brother. OK, that's fine. I think people know what he meant. ] (]) 20:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC | |||
| :::::::::: ], ], I think ] has mistaken you for people who confuse Wikininnying about Wikietiquette with having principles. I'm sure all of you agree that Wikininnying that sanctions and enables antisemitism and allows racists to manipulate the whole project can eat our collective fucks. Now good day to you fine sirs (or madams as the case may be) .--] (]) 20:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as POV pushing & in general disruptive editing. ]] 15:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' topic ban for both Judaism and Communism. This has been an exercise in blatant POV-pushing, and a topic ban is the bare minimum action needed. I would also support a site ban, because I don't think that an editor who been POV-pushing so hard in one topic is going to be editing constructively elsewhere. {{unsigned|BrownHairedGirl}}--15:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' - There is no way you can convince me the the article was not an attempt to legitimize the ] of ]. I mean, does the editor want us to believe that they just had all of those sources lined up, many of which are lined up elsewhere, by the Holocaust denial ], with no intent? I support a site ban, or at the very least a ban on all topics related to Judaism, Jewish People and Communism. ] (]) 16:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - the article has been blanked by an admin as "substantial plagiarism (and therefore copyright violation) going back to its creation". Producer, the creator of the article, says he has retired but I think he should be given an indefinite site ban in case he changes his mind.] (]) 19:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' Been staliking and reading up on this. Would advocate site ban. We are here to create articles, not shit-pits of racist POV. ] (]) 23:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban on Jews and Judaism, but oppose a ban on Communism. The editor has been contributing in the highest quality there for years. Regarding myself, I already said I have no intention of entangling myself in this ugly business again, and do self-ban myself from any topics relating to Judaism. But honestly I don't know why a ban on ''Communism'' is being proposed at all, it seems a very simplistic copy-pasting of the article's title. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per the admission found at the post by Potočnik (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC), in the discussion below. No user should think stringing articles together from an (uncited, mis-cited, masked) antisemitic source on these topics is not prohibited. How is one to trust anything this User has written, if that is his method. Site ban would be reasonable for this. ] (]) 13:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. In all honesty I feel these users should be pleased if they ''only'' get handed a topic ban. '''] <sup><span style="color:#FFD700; font-family:serif">Go Bruins!</span></sup>''' 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <s>*'''Oppose''' Little evidence presented. ] (]) 19:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</s> -''This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet'' - ] (]) 12:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. The preceding ] comment was added at 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC).</small> | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| At their request, the CheckUser access of ] is removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks them for their service. | |||
| ===Second nominee=== | |||
| {{archive top|result=No consensus, especially among uninvolved editors, for a topic ban on Director. Director has apologized for his defense of the recently deleted version of the article and AGF'd that the sources were legitimate. I expect he will take a more cautious and open minded approach to the concerns of other editors in the future.--v/r - ]] 19:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] - 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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' No evidence provided of problematic behaviour. Linking to discussions that failed to gain consensus is not evidence. Also, accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack. ] (]) 20:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It really doesn't matter how many diffs are posted if no one is interested in looking at them. At one point, he was ]. ] (]) 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uhh, no, the position expressed in that latter statement is not at all reflected in policy, that I know of anyway; failure to provide a diff is at most an inadvisable oversight. ''Knowingly'' constructing a specious claim ''for which absolutely no evidence exists at all'' could ''arguably'' be considered a personal attack, but even then, it would be be better described as just general bad-faith behaviour. Let's be careful about misrepresentation of policy to suggest inappropriate behaviour here, in a situation which already has enough fuel. Regardless of how each of us feels about the advisability of the posting, and regardless of how many diffs USChick put into her initial comments, there is a significant issue of ongoing disruption being discussed here that has been agreed to be an issue by dozens of involved editors. Suggesting that there is bad-faith at work in attempting review of the issues is ''not'' going to help. ] ] 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::] "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I have yet to see any ''evidence''. Diffs or otherwise. It is a personal attack without ''evidence''. ] (]) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, accusations that ''lack evidence'' altogether, not accusations for which the evidence was not immediately proffered at the arbitrary point at which you happened to enter the discussion. In order for it to be a personal attack, the claim has to have no basis in fact and be made as part of bad-faith activity. Failing to provide that evidence is an oversight, one that can be (and should, and has been) corrected, but it is ''not'' a personal attack if it was based on an informed perspective of the matter, least of all when there is massive support for the position amongst involved editors also familiar with the circumstances. You specifically implied that failing to provide diffs made any comment they would have supported a personal attack, and that is simply not true. Besides, it's not just diffs alone which make that case, but, as the very section you quoted shows, and linking to relevant discussion. There are a variety of links and diffs in this thread which direct to voluminous discussion across a variety of venues. These are not spurious claims being made by parties on a whim and without any substantial reason for concern, which is the only situation in which the policy you quote would apply. There is no bad-faith activity at work amongst those who brought this topic for discussion - your argument in that direction has no merit. ] ] 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your interpretation is not what the policy says. You could make an argument not providing evidence at the point of asking for the ban was an oversight, but that is not an excuse given it was three hours before I asked for it and multiple people had voted support already. ] (]) 06:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::In what way does my interpretation depart from policy? Please be specific. You made the very precise claim that ''"accusing an editor of a history of disruptive editing without providing diffs is a personal attack."'' and I called you on that. No one is saying either A) that diffs and other solid evidence aren't recommended if you want your claims of bad-faith behaviour on the part of another contributor to be taken seriously, nor B) that it wouldn't be a personal attack if one manufactured non-existent complaints for which they never will be capable of giving evidence. But you've synthesized these two principles into one notion that if an editor makes an accusation of impropriety and they don't immediately make their case with evidence, that is a personal attack, regardless of whether they are in fact correct about the purported behaviour and acting in good faith. That idea is just not supported in policy. Anywhere. But to an extent it's a moot point, since demonstrates there were in fact a dozen-plus diffs and links in this thread supplied as evidence of the behaviour and circumstances being discussed supplied by parties to the discussion, previous to your first post. Mind you, I don't want to get into an endlessly recursive discussion here with you, as it would serve little use to the broader issues here. And I have misgivings about how things have been handled too. But the statement you made was categorically false, and not in a trivial way, since through it you implied that another contributor was engaged in personal attacks. I didn't see that as particularly helpful to the current circumstances, whatever your feelings about whether or not the instigation of this process was well-advised. ] ] 10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Yes, Director's behaviour was very bad, however he has apologised. I would suggest keeping tabs on his activities in related articles and putting him "on probation", as it were, rather than a ban right now.] (]) 21:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I partially agree with Smeat75's proposal. Director has apologized and admitted his fault in the article. '''Support''' (for Director only) the figurative "probation", if not that, then a temporary Topic Ban.. '''oppose''' anything else as Director's involvement is unclear at the moment, it seems as if all he did was behave in a slightly unorthodox way whilst defending the article from the likes of Atlanticire, and that doesn't warrant a topic ban. ] ] ] 21:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' {{u|Snow Rise}} wrote {{tq|"they've proven that they are capable of having their mind changed on the matter"}}. I can't agree. Director collaborated on this polemic before Producer uploaded it. The lede was not the beginning of a neutral encylopedic article; it was recognisably hate literature. It began {{tq|"A near majority of Jews dominated the top ten to twenty leaders of the Russian Bolshevik Party's first twenty years and the Soviet Union's secret police was "one of the most Jewish" of all Soviet institutions"}}, the entire lede continued that litany, and the rest of the article followed in that vein. In discussion, he insisted it was neutral, that it was American bias against communism that rendered his opponents unable to see the true neutrality of the piece. He insisted that oppression of Jews under communism was outside the scope of an article called "Jews and Communism", but would not describe the scope except as {{tq|"an article that lays out the association between "Jews and Communism""}}. He only recoiled when he was busted, and not from the language, not from the framing, not from the purpose, not from the sourcing even now, just from it becoming publicly known that the creators of the Misplaced Pages article - Producer and Director together, that we know of - had taken this polemic from an article written by a known Holocaust denier and defended it to the hilt. Is it {{tq|"clear his motive was ''not'' antisemitism"}} because he expressed mortification for being deceived, mortification that's already been succeeded by resentment at being taken to task for fighting so bitterly for such malicious trash? No, it's not clear. ] (]) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Director doesn't strike me as the type of contributor who changes his perspective based upon the general community consensus of his character and behaviour, no matter how overwhelming. Of course, if your assertion that he and Producer collaborated on the page before it was introduced into article space, or more specifically, that he knew the material was being plagiarized from the source from which it came, can be supported with evidence, that would be a different situation entirely and would generate an instant change in position on my part. However, the diffs you provide are only for a previous implication of this fact on your part and his denial of said claim, which is not really evidence of any sort either way. On a side note, though, I never saw a version the article that far back until now; I had thought the current version was problematic, but that version is truly hideous. As if the obviously fringe and distasteful wording of the prose aside, the use of images to create the implication of a rogue's gallery is itself unsettling, as if meant to say "Look how Jewish all of these communists are." Still, nothing I see screams out as proof that Director wasn't just blind to rampant synthesis at work. While it may seem inconceivable to you or I to not be able to appreciate the hate-mongering that must have been at work in the ultimate source of those claims, it's entirely feasible Director did not. My view of him is that he is simply a problematic editor in general who does not like be disagreed with, and once the situation on the page reached a certain level of heatedness, he was lost to discussion on the matter and inclined to view opposing views as nonsense by default, until incontrovetable evidence as the source of the content snapped him out of it. That's a serious issue in itself, but one not well addressed by a topic ban. Which is why I've advocated giving him a chance to learn a lesson here, but with very little tolerance for anything approaching that kind of behaviour again, which should be met by a general indefinite ban from the project. ] ] 22:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What would your opinion be if it was proven that Director knowingly added a source from an anti-semitic "hate group" onto the article (not that I suggest he has, I only mirror what previous editors have said). Would you support a topic ban then? My position of current, based upon the evidence provided, is that Director is just adamant and stubborn, and perhaps a bit offensive in general. I haven't seen any specific links to a personal attack he made, or to unacceptable contents/sources he uploaded.. although I highly suspect he has done one of the two, that's just speculation.. as much as I would like him to be blocked, and as much as I disagree with his ethics, we're not in a position to do much yet.. ] ] ] 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Personally, my perspective on that matter would depend highly upon the nature of the source and the manner in which it was added. After-all, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that a source used in some context by a hate group could be used for quite a different purpose as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, if Director quoted a source from the same hate group from which Producer plagiarized his content, then it would suggest he was fully aware of Producer's activities, but I've yet to see any evidence of such. If the source came from a different locale entirely, but was not an appropriate source, then that would also raise the spectre of his inability to edit in the topic area in a way consistent with NPOV; but once again, I must stress this is a response to the hypothetical -- all evidence suggests to me that, as you said, he is simply stubborn and determined to get his own way, once he's determined that it's ''the'' way. Though I would add "arrogant, dismissive, and combative" to the list of applicable descriptors. ] ] 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just briefly, because it's late: I found Director's "to all intents and purposes" phrasing curious and so I tried to make my question precise, asking {{tq|"whether you were involved in writing or reviewing any of this material before it appeared as an article in mainspace on the English-language Misplaced Pages?"}}. He didn't say if he reviewed it but he did say that {{tq|"I think I maybe wrote one sentence, and added three or four images."}} so yes, Director worked on it before Producer uploaded it. We now know that much was adapted from the original Weber piece or some intermediate version. I can't tell you if Director was slyly alluding to that when he said he maybe wrote one sentence, whether Producer prepared the adaptation and hid its origins from Director (which I don't think Director has offered as an explanation), or whether they collaborated in the adaptation just as they collaborated in the defence (which seems the simplest explanation). As for the images, that collection was not the synthesis of another hand. There are just five in the article, of which Director admits to "three or four" - most of the work. He also says the sources "checked out"; someone did put in the effort of adding ISBNs as the references in Weber's piece don't have them. ] (]) 23:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hmmm, it does seem to raise the question of how much they collaborate which is germane to other areas of this discussion, but still is not a smoking gun as regards Director knowing the work was plagiarized from an antisemitic source. And lack of foreknowledge of this aspect would explain why he would later say he felt like he needed to take a shower when he learned the true source of the material; that is, he lent his support and collaboration to Producer from the start without knowing of this fact and was disturbed to learn he had been used to further an antisemitic agenda. ] ] 00:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I wanted to say I didn't "write a word of it", but then I remembered I added some images and introduced a brief sentence to the lede, and I didn't want to turn out dishonest. So I said "to all intents and purposes". The edits I referred to were done ''well after'' the article was created. I can't believe all the nonsense that's being drawn from that.. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 18:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I for one am inclined to believe you on this point and I think this line of discussion should be shut down unless more than speculation can be offered. At the same time, it's not exactly "nonsense" for the question to have been raised to begin with, given the circumstances. Honestly, I don't know what to think about your relationship with Producer, but if you two ''do'' have an off-wiki friendship, I imagine you have some choice words to share with him over this whole affair. ] ] 00:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Support''' per nom. I also think a sock and/or meat puppetry investigation is warranted, as explained here. .--] (]) 22:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support (] solely)''' After reading through both the Jews and Communism talk page and its archives , , , and I have changed my mind on the matter. The users attitude was incessant and unwavering. It definitely constitutes ]. That said, I don't think a topic ban on Communism would be helpful here, as the issue largely relates to the antisemitic content that was defended for so long, and the users lack of comprehension as to what the articles greater message was --] (]) 22:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' While I commend Director for his change in view on the article, bans are meant to be preventive. There is nothing that he has to offer to this subject area and his track record shows that disruption could continue. This is certainly a more favorable decision for him than a block, which is probably warranted by his comments on other editors which he continues in this discussion. ] (]) 23:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' How did he "blindly" follow the other editor when he even reversed his position completely? Please, provide diffs for comments that you feel were inappropriate and worthy of a topic ban. There just isn't any evidence here. Just because you disagreed with him in the AfD is not a reason for a topic ban. The discussion at the talk page and the first AfD did become lousier at points, but ] the blame could be equally put upon this ANI topic ban nominator {{u|USchick}} who kept insisting communism doesn't have anything to do with socialism or the Soviet Union with some no-true-scotsman argument that became very tedious. Director kept replying and atleast that following conversation was rather low-quality. Actually, in every "bad" discussion I can find from the archives Drowninglimbo linked above USchick is the other party, both engage with similar style. And USchick is the one suggesting a topic ban for Director? Objectionable. --]] 01:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::He blindly followed the other editor by not having his own opinion about the content as POV, FRINGE and SYNTH. To the point that no one was allowed to fix a math error except Producer. No one else can count? Then he cried crocodile tears when he was exposed. Read through other people's comments please and feel free to nominate me for a topic ban as well if you feel it's warranted. ] (]) 02:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::FYI, I don't think you should get a topic ban. I just think that the most disruptive process in this, if any, was discussion between you and Director. --]] 02:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand your concern. I was stooping to his level in order to even have a discussion with him at all. I was reprimanded by an admin for doing that. Neither one of us took it personally and we continue to joke around about that. Like we do here for example ] ] (]) 02:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Keep an eye on him, as Smeat said above: "probation". I'm sure he knows what's happened, and he has even evidenced disgust on the matter. Let him start fresh, and if problems arise, then action should be taken. At yet, I think he deserves the chance to make a fresh start. I think I can tell, personally, that he knows what happened, and how he got caught up in it. ] — ] 03:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Note that an of his user page had the text: {{ex|This user is not a racist, but does support ]'s statement on racial scientific facts. This user does not believe scientific facts can be "improper", or "morally unacceptable"}} Agreeing with ] or being a racist is not a reason to topic ban someone. But when they have a history of tendentious editing in articles based on racist sources, this is a good reason for a topic ban. I don't think we can trust this user to edit articles that are sensitive to race issues without POV pushing and other disruptive behaviors. ] (]) 05:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I repeat the comment I made about the proposed ban on PRODUCER. The formulation of this proposed ban does not make much sense to me. It is clear that the greatest issue by a huge margin is the anti-Semitic material that was adapted. Why a topic ban on communism is necessary is beyond me. A topic ban on Jews would automatically encompass a ban on anything involving Jews AND communism, or Jews and anything else. We are surely not suggesting that because the two subjects intersect in the article in question that it is necessary to topic ban him from communism as well? Topic bans should be carefully and accurately targeted. This one is not, and it should be refactored. Regards, ] (]) 06:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' - Per my explanation below, I am opposed to suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on "one spat over a single contentious article". If serious accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas. --] (]) 07:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per User {{user|Jehochman}}'s prior warning to Director : "I am alarmed by this edit . You should never reference another editor's religion, race or nationality to challenge their edits or worse to suggest excluding them. This diff is ground to ban you from Misplaced Pages. Please remove it swiftly. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)". Thank you, ] (]) 07:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a topic ban for any content relating to Jews, Judaism and anti-semitism, user contributed to and supported the initial wildly anti-semitic article as documented by ] above, then defended it at all costs. ] and ] also seem relevant. ] (]) 10:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' a topic ban on communism, the case has not been made out by the nominator or supporters, per my comment above. I do not have a view on whether a topic ban should be implemented regarding the topic of Jews, but I caution the closing admin that this proposal was essentially canvassed in the battleground only, and that should be taken into account. ] (]) 11:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' more or less exactly as Peacemaker67 and also per Onlyindeathdoesdutyend (diffs are in the "so what?" category). As pointed out in the additional discussion sub-thread, the supports come out of a highly charged content dispute and a lot of the other behaviours (notably the proposer's, USchick) deserve at least equal scrutiny). ] (]) 12:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' because of the user having defended anti-semitic content for so long and so fiercely, that it's impossible to believe that there is no personal POV involved, even after the user claimed to have changed his mind. ] (]) 13:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Director's primary mistake was really a matter of ], by trusting that the primary source was legitimate. Everything else was based on an attempt to enforce policy and find appropriate resources for the subject. And once the ] broke out, it's not unnatural to feel backed into a corner and have a few choice words. When the actual source of the work came out, Director apologized and agreed to deletion. That's not the action of an unreasonable editor, and I don't see anything to be gained by sanctioning him. — <b>]</span>:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per in section 1. ] (]) 15:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - He has apologized which is better than nothing, but anyway we should just keep on eye out for now. ]] 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - There is no question the editor was disruptive on the article, but that in itself does not rise to the level of a topic or site ban. Most especially the latter. I choose to ] that this editor is just passionate about the topic of Communism and has no interest in trying to legitimize antisemitic canards. I think many well intentioned supporters of this should rethink their support and try to put themselves in the position of having to defend something you believe is being wrongs associated with. I think we would all feel attacked. And even though the editor was wrong, they apologized when the origins of the article were revealed and reversed themselves. That should be good enough. Thanks. ] (]) 16:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've been thinking a bit about how to assume good faith in this situation and what the consequences of that assumption are. IMO the bias in the article (primarily cherry-picking and weight) was so self-evident to a ] that, assuming the editor was engaged in a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, the issues raised in ] come into play. ] (]) 18:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Because Misplaced Pages errs on the side of assuming good faith, the chorus of people opposing a topic ban for Director will probably prevail. In any case, I encourage you to read ]'s essay on his user page. That someone would spend weeks, day in day out, aggressively defending Producer's anti-Semitic POV without recognizing it for what it is seems highly improbable. If you operate on the principle of "do unto others as you would not have them do unto you," then you're counting on people to mistake deviousness for contrition.--] (]) 18:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' six month site ban and subsequent topic banning for a period to be decided to community consensus. I find the editor's epithiny unconvincing. ] (]) 23:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' User has now realised the questionable sources involved and has apologised. Nothing to be gained by any ban/blocks. The agenda now appears to be driven by a group of editors using Foxmanesque smear tactics. ] (]) 04:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe when someone makes a full time job of defending blatantly racist content we ought to stop "assuming good faith" with this person. Maybe consider the possibility that they're a, I dunno, manipulative bigot with an agenda and their apology is probably not sincere. Maybe take a look at the ] links posted to Jim Wales' talk page asking like-minded individuals to edit Misplaced Pages, consider the possibility that they're here, and think about the extent to which you want to allow them to subvert a process such as this one. --] (]) 11:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Wow, long on fantasy..short on facts. Who knows, maybe they are even participating in a secret email campaign against Misplaced Pages to ] As I said, Foxmanesque. ] (]) 12:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Except that it's not... | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::* | |||
| ::::... you get the idea. | |||
| ::::Sorry, what are you implying here? Care to explain what you think this ] project you linked to has to do with the current discussion?--] (]) 13:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: As this is a section concerning ] I naturally assume that all your frothings are accusations against him personally. Have you evidence that those posts are by him? As for the link to CAMERA's attempts to subvert wikipedia, that was alluding to ]s handwaving a few paras down. ] (]) 17:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| On behalf of the Committee, ] (]) 00:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Let's be very clear, ] . Are you suggesting that ] is in any way associated to CAMERA, or is WP:NOTHERE to benefit the project? What ''are'' you suggesting? ] (]) 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025}}'''<!-- ] (]) 00:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == RM completion request == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Done — ] ] 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Please carry out the moves at ]. I was attempting to close it, but got rate-limited because of the sheer number of pages in question. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Along with agreeing with TFD about disruption and knowledge issues, I find remarks like - really malevolent, nasty- and the POV complaint is 'projecting', in Jungian terms imo ] (]) 16:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Doing... ] (]) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::And done. ] (]) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| *'''Support'''. In all honesty I feel these users should be pleased if they ''only'' get handed a topic ban. '''] <sup><span style="color:#FFD700; font-family:serif">Go Bruins!</span></sup>''' 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Done — ] ] 21:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Hi, This is now in the public domain in France, but I can't move this file to Commons because the first version is hidden. Please help. Thanks, ] (]) 14:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <s>*'''Oppose''' Little actual evidence based on user behavior. ] (]) 19:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</s> -''This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet''-] (]) 12:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :], I've deleted the hidden revision, you should be able to move it now.<span id="Masem:1735741442015:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 14:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| *:<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. The preceding ] comment was added at 19:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC).</small> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :*{{tq|"This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 20:57, 15 May 2014 Timotheus Canens blocked Verycarefully with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled)"}} (]) ] (]) 10:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == an obstacle to translation == | |||
| ===Additional discussion=== | |||
| {{Atop|This does not require administrator intervention.--] (]) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| I was going to translate the article ] into Persian. While translating, I noticed that the title of the article and some of its content about the Persian Misplaced Pages were not cited. I contacted the author (])of the article but have not received a satisfactory answer yet. Please look into the matter. ] (]) 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''''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) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Incivility at ] == | |||
| '''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. | |||
| @] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''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) | |||
| :This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ] ] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ] ] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ] ] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages. | |||
| :But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}} | |||
| :::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}} | |||
| :::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::: 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) | |||
| ::::{{u|Coretheapple}}, can you elaborate? Was it producer or director that threatened you? Also, can you provide diffs to the talk page comments you speak of? My current opinion is that of a topic ban for Producer, and a 'temporary topic ban' for the likes of Director, but I could easily have their roles the wrong way around.. ] ] ] 22:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Director. See the repeated "warnings" and threats to "report" me at , especially the "Please consider yourself formally warned" at 07:27, 27 April 2014. These are the kind of bullying tactics that I found especially dismaying from Director. I don't recall if they came from the other chap too, but to be frank I found their tactics interchangeable. ] (]) 23:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Request removal of PMR/Rollback == | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :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) | |||
| | result = Flags removed ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (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) | |||
| Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>] ] 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To justify a topic ban from 'Jews' and 'Communism' evidence needs to be presented of significant disruption ''in the topic area.'' One spat over a single contentious article is not enough to justify a topic ban from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential. ] (]) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Disruption spans across ], ], and ] with many discussions about What is Communism, Who killed the tzar , Who is a Jew . I would say a broad range of topics has already been covered. ] (]) 21:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::It's also worth noting that, while Only in Death's perspective (that disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban) is valid personal position on what is appropriate here, it is not a bar which is required by policy or the block process itself; many topic bans have been instituted for editors whose contentious behaviour was linked to a particular inflexible perspective deemed likely to spill over into other articles. I will say though that OiD's point as to the breadth of topics that would be banned is worth taking under advisement; between those two topics, a significant number of articles would be barred to the editors. That's part of the reason I have reservations in Director's case. With regard to Producer, I dare say it's obvious his issues with NPOV on the Jewish people are problematic beyond repair. Director, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have come into conflict with other editors because of a devotion to the subject matter; rather that conflict stemmed from what he perceived as a matter of editing principle. His issues are more with general civility and the ability to collaborate harmoniously with other editor's and are not tied up with any one particular topic. Which makes a topic ban a dubious solution for dealing with him. I think what is called for in his case is outreach as regards general behaviour and, if that fails in the long-run, a more general sanction/block. ] ] 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Precisely for this reason I nominated them separately, for individual consideration. Thank your for putting it so eloquently. ] (]) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Snow, my opinion is practically a mirror of yours. I concur with Snow's stance on Director precisely. ] ] ] 22:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material == | |||
| :::::Is there anything in Director's editing history that makes you believe that his future contributions to Misplaced Pages outweigh the risk episodes like this one pose to the project? Yes, Director was staunch in defending policy and standing by his sources -- but only ''his'' sources were permitted throughout the article's regrettable life. Only two days ago, he prepared a spirited defense of the page, stating that the entire nomination was deceitful: '''"Folks, you're being lied to regarding what the article is and what its about. The deletion rationale is an appeal to emotion, and is aimed to gather ] on such a basis. ''Nothing'' in it is accurate nor factual…. Furthermore: such ridiculous accusations push forward a right-wing, practically Reaganite political agenda.'''. I particularly draw attention to the dog-whistle allegation about vote-gathering, but more generally to the tone and incivility. This is not the language of an editor who is working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::: Like I said before, the problem I have with the whole situation is that it IS largely unclear who did what. I'm not saying I agree with Director's ethic, but he has a right to say what he said on the afD discussion (no matter how mislead it may be) - we can't punish him in that regard. It's his opinion, and it may be blunt, but it isn't so far as being a personal attack. If you were to provide diffs and references proving that only his sources were permitted through the article's agreeably regrettable life, my opinion could easily sway.. but from an NPOV, I don't think we can judge his behaviour unless more raw proof is provided. Then again, if Director had been making these edits behind an IP rather than a fancy account, he may well already have been banned entirely by now.. all in all, I just don't want to judge pre-emptively.] ] ] 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{la|Naomi Seibt}} | |||
| :::::::And, much as I like to avoid using an essay in circumstances where a very fine policy determination needs to be made, it's rather hard to imagine a situation to which ] would better apply. I'll be clear on this -- I stuck to the ANI discussion and avoided the talk page and even a firm position in the AfD outside of behavioural arguments until the eleventh hour for the very specific reason that I was more concerned with the constant breaks with general civility than anything else and I anticipated that an uninvolved editor would be required to take the matter before another administrator or even ArbCom. I fully expected to have to take that action within a few days. Director's reversal in the AfD backed me away from that perspective, ever so slightly -- just enough that I felt it warranted to give him another opportunity to digest the situation and learn better of boring full steam ahead, deflecting the concerns of large numbers of editors and viewing such contributors as obstinate obstacles rather than collaborators with whom he must work. I am not in any way yet convinced he has taken that lesson to heart, but I think policy and the circumstances compel us to give him one ''very limited'' opportunity to prove that he can before we condemn him outright. If he can't do that, then the topic ban proposed here in insufficient and not well-targeted at his style of disruption, and a general block of at least six months to a year, if not indefinite, is what I would view as the recommendable course of action, though course, if it comes to that, the exact sanction will be at the discretion of the reviewing admin or committee. ] ] 22:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::All I saw was "sources - reliable - attacked - defend!", and by an editor I've known for years to be highly careful about sourcing and very neutral in his approach (not just me either, see Peacemaker's input) - ''and'' the topic was one that could only be expected to draw emotional reaponses no matter how reliable and thorough the sourcing. There really was no ''evidence'' for SYNTH, or any kind of serious wrongdoing - until months have past and some really impressive detective work uncovered the collection of sources to have been those cherry-picked by a racist essay. At that point I actually felt physically ill, not only at discovering the source, but also at having wasted so much effort at being so utterly wrong. I had previously said I'd move for deletion myself if something like that turned out to be the case (I checked the sources, found them to be reliable, and was confident), so when it did turn out that way, I did a 180. | |||
| :Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I still think I acted correctly given the information I had, but I nevertheless apologize for the sheer gravity of the error. I am always annoyed, perhaps to an undue degree, by arguments that I perceive to be borne out of prejudice or bias, hence my strong defense of the sources. It felt weird to me to, but ignoring my gut and going with cold principles, following protocol, its a big part of what I do in real life. And for that I don't apologize, that's how science works, that's how medicine works, that's how Wiki works. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Appeal of topic ban from 2018 == | |||
| ::::::::At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as "disruption". I shall not ''grovel,'' nor will I now attack my fellow Wikipedian of many years, regardless of what he put me (and others) through. I find kicking one when he's down distasteful, regardless of whether he deserves to be down. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 19:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to ] due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is . In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at ] where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to {{U|Alex Shih}} who implemented the topic ban in the first place . ]] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more ]. ] ] 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Endorse lifting TBAN per above. ] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Endorse removal of topic ban. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Endorse removal of topic ban per ]. ] (]) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages == | |||
| :::::::::Yeah, I know you like to present yourself as a scientific kind of guy. But then you let slip something like : ''IZAK is a religious Jewish person with an agenda to disassociate Jews and Communism to the best of his POV-pushing ability. That's a fact. He should leave.'' Yeah, I know, you deleted it, you hoped people would forget you ever said it. But you did, and I have to tell you frankly that your entire approach seemed to reflect the kind of viewpoint that is reflected there. I.e., that your "opponents" were "religious Jews" and "emotional" and ought to get the hell out of the article. That's not what you said, except in this instance, but it was your attitude. It's not a very nice viewpoint, and in fact, I think it's downright ugly. Scientific? A product of "cold principles"? Eh, not exactly. I would feel a lot better if you were a little bit more upfront about your actual attitudes. ] (]) 19:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| <s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior: | |||
| === Evidence === | |||
| ::::::::::Yah. If you're a member of a group, any group, and if you're religious, you're likely to be offended by your group being connected to Communism - completely regardless of whether that's actually warranted or not. That's an objective fact, "scientific", if you will. And the comment was posted in light of ''yet another'' of IZAK's edit wars to introduce changes without consensus, or even proper talkpage discussion. Introducing lists of his favorite religious leaders and whatnot. I said he should leave because he just stopped discussing and simply reverted to edit war. Religious bias is not new as a problem this project has to face. Note also that I have not infrequently called out my own countrymen for nationalist bias when I see it blatantly raise its ugly head. The lesson there is: "science" (or rather objective observations) by no means need be pretty. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 20:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 1. – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions. | |||
| 2. | |||
| :::::::::The thing is, editing on Misplaced Pages requires more than just a nominal dislike of bias; it requires genuine patience with views you don't ascribe much value to. This need for tolerance of opposing perspectives is not just a matter of maintaining civility and keeping discussions from blowing up as they did in this case, though that role is ''crucial'' to our work here; it's also useful because sometimes you're ''really, really'' sure that you right about something...when in fact you aren't. You've just described the sources that informed upon the article as "cherry-picked" - that is in fact the precise argument that a number of involved editors used to call the article into question, suggesting that selective sourcing of trivial facts were being used to formulate a notion not supported by legitimate sourcing on the topic. High as your regard is for your approach as scientific, your empirical nose failed to detect the odor rising from these claims, whereas some of your fellow editors ''did'' sense it, many of whom you actively derided for the position. So it doesn't really serve to excuse your excesses in terms of defense against bias, especially given the level of virulence involved, when it seems that you were applying the most bias yourself, albeit ''partially'' as a result of an exercise in trust. | |||
| – In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment. | |||
| 3. | |||
| :::::::::I come from a background in science myself, and I know of no academic or research institution, not any organization devoted to a genuinely "scientific" approach to tackling problems, that would have allowed you to try to make your arguments the way that you did in this case -- that is, in such an obstinate and uncivil manner; those kinds of attitudes are viewed very dimly in scientific literature, in lecture halls, at conferences, in debates, and anywhere else where scientific consensus is typically formulated. I wish I could say such attitudes and personal arrogance were absent entirely from the process of contemporary scientific process -- they certainly aren't -- but they aren't typically tolerated as appropriate to public discourse at least. And, thankfully, neither are they welcome on Misplaced Pages. Anybody can state that they have depersonalized "scientific" way of approaching problems, but the mere proclamation doesn't necessarily make them a particularly good standard-bearers for those ideals in reality, and I've often observed that those who make such announcements outside of context of actual science often have the most tenuous grasp of such notions. | |||
| – In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true. | |||
| 4. | |||
| :::::::::And on the topic of empirical validation, I don't really have enough prior experience with you to know if this is an isolated incident or typical of your approach to discussion, but I do think that your perspective as voiced here... | |||
| - After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated ] for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the ]. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all. | |||
| 5. | |||
| ::::::::::''"At the AfD I apologized to anyone offended by my conduct, which, admittedly, stripped as it is now of its "righteous cause" (of defending reliable sources), does indeed render into sheer rudeness. But viewed in the context of what we had in terms of evidence at that time, I can't bring myself to view it as 'disruption'."'' | |||
| - The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly. | |||
| ] (]) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche. | |||
| :::::::::...is really at the crux of the matter. You should be writing every single posting in a Misplaced Pages discussion, ''every last one'', so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude. Because if it's rude when you're in the wrong about the matter being discussed, it's almost certainly ''still'' rude if you're in the right; rudeness is not really directly correlated to the strength of your factual or policy argument -- it's about respect and how you ''make'' your argument. And if your comments aren't composed to avoid incivility, regardless of the strength of your positions, the behaviour ''is'' disruptive, by default. It's not really my place to lecture you sanctimoniously as to what lesson you ''should'' learn here, but if there is one I would ''hope'' you should learn from this fiasco, it's that. I certainly can't think of a better general piece of advice to give ''any'' contributor. ] ] 01:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I'd put it this way. I find that Director's continued ignorance of the ugliness and unacceptable character of his words, his utter absence of respect for other editors, his judging of them on the basis of their religion, his stratospheric arrogance, to be nothing less than chilling. I must say that I am starting to have a lot of trouble accepting the sincerity of his mea culpa. It strikes me as being purely expedient and not in any way reassuring that he won't "objectively" decide someday to go on the offensive in an article like this again. ] (]) 04:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, only time will tell. ] ] 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::@"You should be writing every single posting in a Misplaced Pages discussion, ''every last one'', so that, if it is stripped of its "righteous cause" (or any motivation, virtuous or petty), it still will not come across as rude." - That would be the ideal, and I did apologize for the conduct you refer to. However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light. | |||
| ::::::::::::@Coretheapple, I think I have explained exactly and honestly what I'm sorry for, and what I'm not. I don't see what there is for you to speculate about. I'm not sorry for calling on an edit warrior to spare us his disruption, or to stop pushing a POV. You can perceive that as whatever you like, I can't alter your preconceptions. What I am sorry for is wherever I was unduly zealous in defending the cherry-picked sources, as well as for the error itself. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::It's not a question of "sorry" as much as it is one of whether there will be problems in the future. As I keep saying, the aim of a topic ban is preventive, not punitive. I think your declaration on your talk page and above that you're "self-banning" from topics relating to Jews is a positive step. ] (]) 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I pretty much said so ''from the start''.. Didn't I say I had no intention of restarting all this? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 14:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Spat" - seriously? You're characterising antisemitism as ? ] (]) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Two editors who edited wikipedia for many years are faced with very serious accusations for ] and all kind of disruptive behavior. Editors who made such accusations (and maybe administrator ({{U|Jehochman}}) who indeffed them) should present evidence (in form of diffs) for their accusations within reasonable period of time. | |||
| *# I agree with opinion that "disruption on a single, or low number, of articles does not constitute cause for a topic ban". That is why it would be good, if accusations would be proven, to check if there are more members of their travelling circus (this should not be difficult because there are efficient tools for interaction analysis) and to define what topic areas they covered. Based on this it would be possible to determine who should be banned and from what topic areas. | |||
| *# If accusations remain unjustified within reasonable period of time, something should be done to prevent unjustified accusations against those two editors in future.--] (]) 22:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Additional examples:''' | |||
| * In this lively debate Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion. | |||
| * In a discussion about Secret Police there was a math error. Director claimed that no one was allowed to make any edits until Producer showed up. Like no one else can count? | |||
| * Atlantictire was blocked over a dispute that was content related. And then he lost it. I tried to console him and Producer took me to ANI over this statement on his talk page . I don't know how to find the ANI discussion. Really, there are plenty of diffs linked in this discussion already if anyone is interested in following them. ] (]) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Trotsky poster discussion went to ANI and showed up again in an unrelated article. . | |||
| :: Director had a right to disagree with the AfD nomination, but he did not have a right to call it a lie. It was not. He did not have a right to claim that nothing in the nomination was accurate or factual; that claim was untrue. He did not have a right to call them ridiculous, or to characterize them as a right-wing; that's both untrue and a personal attack. Read the whole sorry talk page -- it's only two or three months, and you can read it all in a few hours. Director and Producer are counting on you not to bother. They can and will issue, just as they have repeatedly issued, personal attacks without sanction against any and all editors trying to improve their articles, and it seems people will continue to ask for more evidence and more WP:ROPE. Please turn out the lights when you leave, OK? ] (]) 22:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::WP:ROPE can be better applied in case of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans from thousands and thousands of articles, either existing or potential, based on ''"one spat over a single contentious article"''. If your accusations are justified, it should be easy to present evidence which would reveal all members of their traveling circus and all topic areas they operated.--] (]) 23:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't personally believe such a cabal of editors exists. Frankly, I think that the collaboration between Director and Producer alone has been overemphasized, a determination I make from my own observations of the present article as well as procedural discussion of their past behaviours. An SPI failed to find an geolocative link between them, and though this does not rule out meatpuppetry, neither have we firm evidence along these lines that I have been able to turn up. There's also ], in which the link is explored and users {{u|DeCausa}} and {{u|TParis}} imply that the two have frequently been at eachother's throats in other discussions pertaining to Eastern European articles. There ''were'' past issues referenced by {{u|FkpCascais}} concerning Director and Producer in ], surrounding a past discussion surrounding ] and collaborative behaviour between the two, but he references no other parties and I never dug up the discussion to observe the nature of their interaction there.. I don't know what to make of the ultimate likelihood that meatpuppetry is at work here. I rather get the feeling that what we are talking about is two very tenacious and combative editors who work in similar areas and that sometimes butt heads, but when their interests converge, they have no qualms with combining their considerably dogged (and frequently vitriolic) efforts to try to tear down any dissent to their preferred approach. They could be collaborating off-wiki, or these combined efforts could be the result of entirely incidental cross over in interests, but I think their motives at the very least could be said to be very different in most cases. In any event, I don't think a link needs to be established to prove that their behaviour has been collectively disruptive and generally inappropriate, but their violations of policy are not identical in form or context, so I'm doubtful of the "traveling circus" hypothesis or that it can inform significantly on how to deal with them. ] ] 00:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Many, maybe most, of the editors supporting these suggested topic bans I have never seen at AN befroe, which worries me. How did they get here? Were they canvassed? Was the canvassing of '''''all'''''' participants in the various discussions, or only those on one side? If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court? ] (]) 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only place this discussion was announced is here ]. Everyone commenting was personally involved in some way. ] (]) 22:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, what you're saying is that almost everyone -- or let's says a large percentage of everyone -- who has commented here is on the opposite side of the issue from Producer and Direktor. yes? Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic? ] (]) 23:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To make matters worse, they are proposed for topic ban from Jews and Communism although the most important point at related AfD was that it is wrong to connect Jews and Communism.--] (]) 23:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors. ] (]) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had no association with Director or Producer before the AfD. Most people who have voted thus far first met the likes of Director and Producer at the AfD page, with a few exceptions. After making judgement there, as seen on the AfD page, we decided the best thing to do next was to pursue a topic ban. No "personal biases" against Producer nor Director existed for the vast majority of us, as most of us (I'd think) stumbled upon this whole fiasco via the Articles for Deletion page.. our initial judgement was made there and then was carried here. ] ] ] 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(ec) Sorry, but I see a lot of personal animosity and groupthink in your statement above ("the likes of...", "<u>we</u> decided", "<u>our</u> initial judgment"). I agree with Liz that we need the opinions of '''''uninvolved''''' editors in this matter. ] (]) 23:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: By "we", and "our", I meant those who came here from the AfD page by the means of consensus, not the entire group, although I do recognize your point.. from your perspective it's understandable. As you can see by the intense debate above, there isn't really any 'groupthink' amongst those who came here from AfD. I'm relatively uninvolved in the whole fiasco, and in fact I came in to contribute to the AfD as someone who was precisely that; uninvolved. Obviously, it would be better for more uninvolved users to come and contribute.. but just because a user has contributed to a discussion on an AfD page doesn't render them illegitimate in the regard of offering their opinion about related topic bans.. my choice of the word "we" held the meaning of "those who came from the AfD page", not "We, the group of collaborators". ] ] ] 23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Animosities are not valid arguments for a ban. Not all editors here agree about the ban. At least not such widely defined, unless evidence is presented about members of the circus and all topic areas they covered. Only based on such evidence uninvolved administrators can determine who should be topic banned and from what topic areas.--] (]) 23:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::BMK, "the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are" certainly not "those who strongly disagree with them on that topic". That's not how Misplaced Pages works and I suspect everyone here knows that - yourself included. ] (]) 23:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Can you be clearer? ] (]) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'll try. You asked "If this truly a fair hearing or a kangaroo court?" and "Doesn't that strike you as a problem, that the people who will decide if those two should be topic banned are those who strongly disagree with them on that topic?" I'm answering that your premise is wrong: the editors who are making a case for bans or other measures know full well that they will not get to decide, that they will not have the opportunity to be the judges in a kangaroo court. They are making a case - or rather several cases, as usual - and discussing the matter. This is normal, this is how the process works. You've been around a long time and I think I've seen you participating in ban discussions before, so you know this already. Or am I wrong? ] (]) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Ah - I see I was. One editor didn't quite grasp the need for uninvolved editors to participate. Sorry. ] (]) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :What bothers me is that Director emphatically stated that the article was neutral and impugned the motives of editors who said it was anti-Semitic. Even now he suggests that there was no way of knowing this without seeing the comparison with the IHR article, and that editors who recognized this weakness in the article before the comparison was presented were acting in bad faith. He stubbornly defended the article instead of doing basic research to see whether this presentation was consistent with academic literature. I commend him for finally backing down in the second AfD. | |||
| :But I think a break from this topic is in order. If any editors plan to revisit the topic and create new articles, I think his participation would continue to be disruptive. Furthermore, he has no particular expertise in the area and has not done any in-depth research. His participation was mostly fighting to maintain the ''status quo'' in the article. | |||
| :] (]) 23:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 6. List affected articles: ], ], etc. | |||
| {{out}} I'm confused - what is being asked for here, a topic ban from the '''''intersection''''' of the subjects "Jews" and "Communism", i.e. everything to do with the relationship between Jews and Communism; or a ban from the '''''combination''''' of those two subjects, i.e. everything to do with Jews '''''and''''' everything to do with Communism? ] (]) 23:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Both subjects. Everything to do with ] and everything to do with ]. As stated in the original proposal. ] (]) 23:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't submit the report, but I think a topic ban for ] is more appropriate than ] '''and''' ], due to the main issue being the promotion of antisemitic views on the website --] (]) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not everyone agrees that antisemitism is a problem in this case. Just like not everyone here agrees on the topic of Jews and Communism. However, everyone agrees that Director and Producer should be banned form these topics (Director to a lesser extent). ] (]) 23:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Everyone agrees" - So, you're ignoring the one oppose !vote? ] (]) 23:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The one "oppose" vote is a non involved party. As the nominator, i specifically asked for involved parties on both sides of the Jewish/Communist argument (yes there are both sides) to comment. Maybe that's the wrong approach? Maybe only non involved parties should comment? The problem with that, is Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation. Some people have been banned and are not here. My intention is to see if there is any community consensus for a topic ban and to do it while the evidence is still here. (Pending AfD) What's funny, is that early on, people were worried that no one would find this discussion to participate in it. ] (]) 00:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Ah, you've just proved me wrong - I told BMK everyone here seemed to understand the process. Everyone can comment but no decision to ban will be made without the participation of uninvolved members of the community. ] (]) 00:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Non involved members voted here as well. But the one "oppose" vote is from a non involved party. To see who is involved or not is very easy. Anyone not voting on the AfD is not involved in any way. Here's a link of people voting in the AfD ] (]) 00:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'd be massively oversimplifying if I said that the closing administrator will look for consensus among the uninvolved editors and ignore the involved ones. But you might do well to continue as if that was true. ] (]) 00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I made the nomination, but I honestly didn't expect this much support. I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do. ] (]) 00:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::It's worth noting that a number of editors who responded to the AfD had no previous involvement in the article or the caustic situation on its talk page. Still others came to be involved through the ANI postings and did not contribute opinions to the content of the article itself so much as the behaviour of certain parties already operating there. A look at ] suggests that involvement in the discussion here does not seem to rely exclusively upon those who were already in conflict over the article, though of course those parties are welcome to have their say and their knowledge of specific incidents of disruption is necessary to make heads or tails of this situation. ] ] 00:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The problem is that with a topic ban discussion which appears, from the nominator's comments here, to have been set up in a deliberately partisan fashion, it's likely that the closing admin will note the lack of !votes from uninvolved editors and close it without action -- especially when there's a distinct lack of evidence presented. ] (]) 03:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::That would be unfortunate. Instructions at ] don't explain that only non involved editors are allowed to comment. No where does it say how to nominate someone for a topic ban or what will be considered, only that it takes community consensus. So basically, you have to be an experienced admin to understand the process. Producer and Director are allowed to get away with terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies. I don't know how many more diffs I could possibly provide as examples because no one seems to care about the examples already provided. I hope admins will consider the volumes already written in previous ANI complaints and the time required to babysit these 2 editors on complaint boards, not to mention wasted electricity by the combined effort of all involved. This is a recurring complaint, and if I knew how to link to all the other similar complaints, I would, but seriously, unlike the 2 editors nominated, who have lots and lots of Misplaced Pages edits, I have a life. Unless questions are directed at me personally, I don't plan to contribute anything else to this discussion. I trust that the Misplaced Pages community will do the right thing, whatever you decide that to be. I hope by bringing this to light, enough people are aware now of the Producer/Director duo. Save this link, because someone will want to link to it again in the near future. ] (]) 04:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::p.s. Some of the complaints can't be found because they happened at ] article which has since been deleted along with the edit history. This is why this nomination is taking place now, before the AfD for ] is finished. ] (]) 05:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I have to say that in my decade on Misplaced Pages, I've rarely or never seen any discussion which was primarily lead by "uninvolved" editors, at least not if one uses such a narrow definition of "involved" as "voted a particular way on deletion of an article". I've been at the article in question since April 28th, in response to an ANI discussion asking for more eyes back then. I've seen Director (mostly) and Producer (a little) in action, and that enables me to have an informed opinion about their behaviour in this topic. Does that make me "involved" or merely "informed"? --] (]) 05:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Well, the nom's original posting may not have made the case it might have, lacking diffs, but there are now dozens of diffs and links to discussions above which supply a pretty cohesive picture of the behaviours being weighed here; I'd say there's as much evidence as you're ever likely to find for such a proposal, whatever one's disposition to that evidence. Mind you, I'm one of the few editors who has commented so far who doesn't feel that the case is an open-and-shut one for both editors, but even I don't contest that the behaviours of both have been disruptive in the extreme -- one need only look at ] to establish that much. I'm simply uncertain as to whether the solution being proposed here is the ideal one under the circumstances. With regard to Producer, my hesitation hinges on the fact that I have not seen the side-by-side of the source which the article was apparently lifted from and the article itself, but if blatant plagiarism is involved (from an antisemitic fringe source, no less) then it's unlikely the responding administrator will find reason to stop and count !votes as they aren't particularly necessary or relevant in that context. Director is a more nuanced case, and though I would have preferred to have waited to see whether he would continue to operate in the same manner as he has before launching such a discussion as this with regard to him, it's hard to fault those who wanted to curtail his combative behaviour. | |||
| === Context === | |||
| :::::::::::In any event, I must, with respect, also disagree with your characterization that there is a dearth of uninvolved editors voting, as a number of those who have commented here were not involved in any form of content dispute with either editor, and commented here seemingly as a result of coming to a dim view, through the prism of one of the ANIs or AfDs, of the pair's tactics. Editors who were not involved in said content disputes, or who gave only an opinion within the narrow context of the most recent AfD without having had any opportunity to come into conflict with either party, can generally be said to be about as uninvolved as anyone who came across this matter just by checking the noticeboards. Administrators operating in this venue are familiar enough with this song and dance to know how to review the pertinent discussions in enough detail to see which editors have a truly neutral disposition to the matter, and which might have been biased by the ongoing arguments surrounding the article, and weight their perspectives accordingly in determining the broader consensus. Unless unduly influenced by our very conversation here on the matter, this is not an example of a situation where I anticipate the responding editor would be likely to dismiss the concerns raised as not backed by sufficient neutral voices or as generally lacking in evidence. I still don't favour a topic ban for Director at this time, not under the circumstances, but at the same time, I hope your concerns as to the prospect of a non-committal close prove unfounded, as process has already failed to arrest this situation at several points where it might have and I am concerned the situation will only renew itself without some form of finding, whatever the sanctions or lack there-of. ] ] 06:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| - This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today. | |||
| {{od}}I find the call for involved editors to reach a determination on this strange and unusual. A TBAN needs to be determined by the community at large whether involved or univolved. Sure, AN discussions are typically led by the involved, but that's something different. I tend to agree with BMK that it ''sounds'' like a partisan call to their enemies at the AfD. <s>I doubt it's so bad that it invalidates the apparent consensus - most likely, in this case, uninvolved would have appeared here as much if the involved call had not been made - but,</s> IMO, any closing admin should make it clear it was incorrect to launch the discussion in that way. ] (]) 06:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| - I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :I am highly suspicious given I have looked over the diffs that have been presented as evidence. At the worst they consist of ''multiple'' people edit-warring to add/remove reliably-sourced information. The repeated bandying about of that ridiculous indef block is certainly interesting given the strong consensus it was ill-thought out in the first place (see why it was removed), but also in the sheer amount of editing that went on while it was in place. Unsurprisingly more than a few of the support voters above are represented there. A good sign of tendentious editing is seeing what happens when one party to a dispute is unable to edit. ] (]) 06:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I'm inclined to think the same. I've just been looking through many of the diffs, having not been involved before, and a big "so what?" is growing in my mind. I've had tangles with Direktor before (not on this) and yes he can be dogmatic and a pain in the rear sometimes, but frankly in the diffs presented I'm seeing similar from his opponents. ] (]) 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::A few points. I am uninvolved in this case, but have edited alongside both editors for over two years in the Yugoslavia in WWII space. They are neither socks nor meat, they regularly disagree, sometimes vehemently (as do I with them on occasion). I recently watchlisted PRODUCER's talk page because I had left a comment there about an unrelated issue, and that is how I come to be here. I have made a comment above on my view about the scope of the proposed bans. IMO there is insufficient basis for a ban on the topic of communism, regardless of the success or otherwise of a push for a ban on the subject of Jews. This is a similar concern to that expressed by Drowninginlimbo above. | |||
| :::*I note that Antidiskriminator pops in now and again to try to get some interest in other areas that these editors edit in the apparent hope of expanding any bans to other topics and other editors. So far, unsuccessfully, although I note that he has now opposed a ban unless his "travelling circus" allegation is properly explored. All I will say is that this is a blatant attempt to "pile on" and stick the boot in to two editors he has sparred with over a number of years, and the attempt does not paint him in a good light. His allusions to a "travelling circus" is an allegation he has made in the past when disputes have arisen. He has significant history with both editors, and his comments about them should be assessed with that in mind. | |||
| :::*I have edited alongside both of these editors in the Yugoslavia in WWII space, and while I occasionally find Director's approach to certain matters frustrating, I have found PRODUCER and Director to be meticulous about using reliable sources, and was very surprised to read the allegation that PRODUCER had used an unreliable source and that Director had defended it (at least until he became aware of its origin). | |||
| :::*PRODUCER and I have collaborated on several FAs and MILHIST A-Class articles, and he has always been a stickler for reliable sources in what is also a controversial area. | |||
| :::*I agree with many of the comments made by Liz, Snow Rise, Flipandflopped, DeCausa and BMK, and urge caution here. I will observe that USchick comes across (rightly or wrongly) as harbouring quite a bit of personal animosity, despite saying that "I'm not looking to sway the jury, let the community decide what to do". Descriptions like "terrorizing editors simply because they have experience with the system as repeat offenders and bullies", "Producer/Director are very skilled at policy and at tag teaming against everyone else to the point where lots of us have been sanctioned because of this ongoing situation" and "Don't you think it's strange for 2 people to have created so much animosity toward themselves? If you can find any supporters they have, feel free to canvass for them. The people here all have different opinions about the topic, but strangely enough, they all agree to ban 2 very offensive editors". There is a level of personal attack that I consider unwarranted, and it was continued with dubious accusations about Director's apparent admiration for Watson and "scientific racism". | |||
| :::*I am also very concerned that the only place this ban proposal was advertised (by the nominator, I understand) was on the talk page of the article about which the dispute arose. This was problematic, because it drew editors that were already involved, with the fairly predictable result above. There do not seem to be many really uninvolved editors here, to me at least. Regards, ] (]) 07:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I hadn't realised that last bullet point - and have struck my comment that the call for "involved editors" wouldn't affect the outcome. The avalanche of "supports" is, I think, the grinding of axe's from that article talk page. (Btw, I too have seen Producer and Direktor squabble - I assumed that sock/meat allegation had been burried. If not, it is ridiculous to anyone who's been around Eastern european articles for the last few years.) ] (]) 08:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That comes close to dismissing everyone who's contributed to the article or discussions on it as axe-grinders, bearers of long-standing grudges and the like. I only came to the article a week ago and the last time I looked at contribution histories I was struck by how many had also arrived quite recently - long after the first AfD and the ANI discussions and so on. Again without running checks with wikitools, I think I've never interacted with Director or Producer before and I suspect that's true of others here. (I had seen the names on the drama-boards before, true, and had a vague impression that they often squabbled.) ] (]) 10:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I wasn't referring to long-standing grudges (although that may be present in some cases) but to the preponderance of opponents of Direktor and Producer on the article talk page appearing here and the lack of signifificant univolved comment, until recently. In other words, the axe to be ground originated at that article. That's not to say that every post in support is grinding an axe, but, taken overall, this AN thread supposedly about behaviour is largely (but not entirely) a mirror of the content dispute with the content majority on one side and the content minority (a very small minority) on the other. There are editors within the content majority whose behaviour at the article talk page is at least as problematic as the content minority's behaviour, but there appears no interest in holding that up to scrutiny. ] (]) 11:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I just noticed that Director expressed below far more succinctly what I meant by axe grinding: "The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute". ] (]) 11:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I also agree that USchick's involvement is problematic. One of the relatively few diffs prsented by them is this: "In this lively debate Director provides a source to prove his point about Lenin. Then when I attempt to use the same source to prove a different point, he wants to shut down the discussion." But I would characterise that diff as Direktor rightly ddismissing an off-point and tendentious response to him by USchick. In fact, much of the disruption around this article seems to be generated by USchicj - see . ] (]) 09:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== | |||
| :::::@Peacemaker67, Thank you for pointing to the collaboration between you, Director and Potočnik in ARBMAC topic area which paint all of you in a good light. You somehow overlooked to say that you were blocked at ] (). Three of you are top three active contributors of this article () whose title remained unchanged because three of you opposed on the talkpage, where you and Director alone made 1649 comments.. --] (]) 09:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice-->. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue. | |||
| ::::::That is barely worth responding to. All I will point out is that Antidiskriminator was ARBMAC-banned from an article for tendentious and disruptive editing. He comes here with unclean hands, and should be pointedly ignored in this case. ] (]) 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. <u>The vast majority of editors commenting here were just now on the opposite side from me in a highly contentious and emotional content dispute</u>. If the community wishes to impose sanctions I would appreciate it if the decision was made by uninvolved editors, objectively evaluating the exchanges in question - ''not'' a collection of biased, angry editors quite possibly out for revenge after my having dared to oppose their positions on an article talkpage. | |||
| ] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :If the community considers user conduct on that article worthy of review, then I suggest the whole mess be brought before ArbCom for an objective overall assessment of everyone's conduct, rather than singling anyone out like this. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 09:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in ]. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our ] before resuming editing. ] 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have some support for this notion. There's no guarantee they will take the case, but if they did, there'd be some genuine resolution. You should bear in mind though, Director, there is an outside chance this approach could end with more significant actions than just a topic ban. As an observer to that page, I'll be blunt with you -- you didn't come off well, especially in the civility department -- to my assessment anyway. Utilizing this solution may serve to spread the blame around a little, but if it's pure vindication you are looking for, I think you're likely to be disappointed. Right now, in the present discussion, a lot of energy is being wasted on the debate concerning whether the fight to introduce and maintain antisemitic material disqualifies you and Producer from contributing in certain related areas. ArbCom is unlikely to be distracted for long by such red herrings; they'll focus very quickly on the substantive ''policy'' matters, and I should be not at all surprised if ] becomes the chief issue in that discussion, whereas it has been severely underrepresented so far in discussions about what went wrong on that talk page. That being said, you will at least be afforded every opportunity to defend your position on equal footing with your detractors. In that respect, I think it may be the best way forward for all parties. ] ] 10:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I said "''if''". I don't care about "spreading the blame", I just care that we do this ''fairly'', objectivity is kind of "my thing". I don't care if I'm the only one who gets sanctioned, but I don't want it to happen because biased users with a specific interest gathered and posted a lot of "'''Support'''" votes. Input by new, uninvolved editors should be what matters here. The term "kangaroo court" does come to mind. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 12:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective. | |||
| I feel I need to state a few things: This pdf that is being persistently pushed is by some individual named "Valdas Anelauskas" and titled "Zionism and Russia" and readily available on Archive.org alongside thousands of other works by various authors. In any event I did not know that reliable sources are absolutely off limits if they've happened to have been quoted elsewhere by less reputable sources. For what it's worth my interest on the subject was piqued by Stanford University's "Jews and Communism" publication (hence the article name), later Slezkine, and more later by other sources. All that being said this article and this area of Misplaced Pages has put out such a toxic environment with its nonstop drama that, regardless of the outcome above, I'm willfully barring myself from editing in it ever again. I had been contemplating retiring from Misplaced Pages for a while now even prior to this whole ordeal and have chosen to follow through with it and do so. Therefore I am retiring indefinitely and am ceasing all further editing on any portion of Misplaced Pages. This my final and only comment on the matter and on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability). | |||
| :I think that is sad, because en WP has lost a productive editor who contributed to featured content of which en WP should be proud. Editors bringing such matters to this or similar fora should remember that throwing a ] can result in your being hit in the back of the head when you least expect it. Some of the above has not been done in good faith, but in pursuit of personal agendas. This discussion has only included a very narrow and largely involved slice of the en WP community, and this should be taken into account by closing administrators. ] (]) 11:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference. | |||
| :*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on. | |||
| :*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently. | |||
| :*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ] ] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ] ] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of ] going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. ]] 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You mean Valdas Anelauskas, member of the white nationalist ]? --] (]) 11:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we can hold Producer/Potočnik to his self imposed exile, I think that in itself will make many people very happy. No further action will be necessary. ] (]) 11:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I personally don't care about the exile either way, I still think the user should receive a topic ban for ] to prevent them spreading further ideas about the Jewish people at their discretion. It would otherwise be a good thing if they were able to edit other parts of the website. I think the very least administrators should do is show initiative and prevent the potential circulation of further anti-Semitic propaganda on the website? --] (]) 12:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's true. A person who retires can unretire. ] (]) 14:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing '''my''' pages" ('''emphasis''' added). {{ping|NovembersHeartbeat}}, I would strongly advise that you read ], ], ], and ]. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to ] as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but ]. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. ] (]) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I still fail to see the supposed "animosity" that Peacemaker67 and Antidiskriminator speak of. Where has any any one on here expressed any strong hostility towards director? Just because I have an editing history on the afD page for Jews and Communism, one of the several articles in question, my opinion becomes invalid? My first direct interaction with Director happened after the creation of this topic ban proposal, so how could I have had a "vendetta" against Director? In fact, at this point, I don't even agree with the nominator in regard to giving Director a topic ban, only Potocnik. The notion that an editor has to be entirely clueless of a situation when he joins the discussion associated with it in order to have a valued opinion makes no sense. ] ] ] 15:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Repeated tool abuse by ] == | |||
| :Well, there clearly isn't all that much animosity toward Director because, at the moment, a plurality of people oppose his topic ban. He has definitely won over a lot of people by his apology, and that is how it should be. The question is whether a topic ban is needed to prevent further damage to the project, not whether he needs to be dragged to the town square and horsewhipped. ] (]) 17:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::There is some animosity, especially between Atlanticire and Director, but not enough to render the entire topic ban irrelevant, or to render the opinions of everyone who contributed to the afD page irrelevant (as some people above have suggested). My opinion on Director has been that I'm incapable of judging him because no one is on the same page as to what it is he actually did, but to me it's clear that Potocnik/Producer is incapable of editing Judaism related articles from a NPOV. ] ] ] 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself. | |||
| However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community. | |||
| To User Potocnik @ 10:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC) above. Sorry to see you go. Somehow I suspect it is just a case of a "]". Time will tell. You know, whenever I see you or Director edit or opine during this entire laborious labyrinthine byzantine Jews & Communism discussion, the words of an English poet I studied many decades ago come to mind: | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article. | |||
| :"...'''A truth that’s told with bad intent''' | |||
| :'''Beats all the Lies you can invent'''. | |||
| :It is right it should be so; | |||
| :Man was made for Joy and Woe; | |||
| :'''And when this we rightly know''' | |||
| :'''Thro’ the World we safely go'''..." (From ]'s "To See a World..."). | |||
| ] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Based on the unyielding ongoing self-righteous defenses you and Director offer up all the time, evidently you fail to grasp the profound import and implications of what the words "...<u>A truth that’s told with bad intent Beats all the Lies you can invent</u>!" mean. If you would, or could, then none of this horrendous and divisive debate would be necessary as the discussion would stop being one of "]" as the two of you try making it all about "sources" when the real problem is one of the core underlying negative and malicious ''intent'' of the way it's set up that comes across based on its presentation and your torrid defenses of what is ultimately indefensible. Thank you, ] (]) 06:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. Good point on a "]".--] (]) 08:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. ] (]) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ===Systemic failure to provide oversight in this case=== | |||
| :I'm not sure what you mean {{tq|without any explanation}} as his clearly documents his reason as {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR}}. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: ] or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at ] and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. ] ] 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The article "Jews and Communism" was created, as we know now, using material from an extremist anti-Semitic website as a source without attribution. Two days after its creation, it was nominated for deletion but the result was "no consensus". I find it disturbing that closing admin RoySmith says in his closure that one of the charges against the article is that it is "Attack page (anti-semetic)" but does not address that in his remarks, saying "what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism?" and the answer is that there is no consensus, so he allowed this very clearly anti-Semitic attack page to continue to be promulgated on this site. Then there was a deletion review, closed by Sandstein as "no consensus" , again, the very clear anti-Semitic content did not seem to be disturbing any admins or oversighters on this site. A long AN/I started by Director with the stated aim of removing "those folks who hang around being disruptive obstructions" from the article and which developed into a discussion of his behaviour, was eventually closed by v/r as "no consensus". "No consensus, no consensus, no consensus, not to become an anti-Semitic website, go away and leave us alone, and don't edit war or call each other names or you will be expelled from school for a day or two." I must say I was very disappointed that Jimbo Wales, in the discussion on his talk page, said he would look at the article and give his opinion, but he never did, and the discussion was archived with no further comment from him . All this did attract the attention of two admins who honourably did try to intervene and improved things a little,Jehochman and Stephan Schulz, but what were all the rest of you doing? Another AN/I I started about edit-warring was also just ignored by admins for days and days until it was closed by Spike Wilbury as, guess what, "no consensus" , but at least he did then step into the article talk page and try to do something. Maybe because I know a little about early 20th century Russia, that stuff in the article about Jews killing the Tsar immediately indicated to me that this was as clearly pushing extreme anti-Semitism as if there were an article on WP about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" saying that it shows a Jewish plot to take over the world. I said so over and over but no one in authority seemed to take any notice, you would have hoped that someone might have looked into it. I am the person who found the connection between the article on the white supremacist website and the original WP article, and it really wasn't that hard,all I had to do was google the quote about "Jewish violins" killing the Tsar and there it was. All these bureaucratic procedures, lists of rules, blah blah blah, should not have prevented somebody doing something to remove poisonous racist crap from this website but the people who could have done that seem to be timid and afraid of doing anything and wait for someone else to deal with it or for it to "go to ArbCom", oh yes, spend five months collecting "evidence" and going through infinite quasi-legal hoops. The article is ''still'' onsite, though at least without the horrible "Jews killed the Tsar" stuff. Please excuse the rant, I needed to get that off my chest, it can be hatted if someone wants to do that.] (]) 12:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. ] (]) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Emoji redirect == | |||
| {{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Was trying to create ] as a redirect to ]; the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the ] aka the ]. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] identifies the central issue in this matter: '''Can Misplaced Pages resist concerted efforts to contaminate it with lies, hate, and deception?''' In the time from February through May 2014, it signally failed to do so. The virulent anti-Semitism of the original article should have been evident to all, and much of it persists to this day despite the efforts of literally dozens of editors and the investment of hundreds of hours. The attention of administrators, and indeed of Wikimedia board members, should have been focused by the original AfD, the Jimbo discussion, the two long, long threads at AN/I, and plenty of direct correspondence. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Topic ban appeal == | |||
| This was not an obscure or difficult issue requiring expertise, some dispute about mathematical series or the best name for some forgotten Balkan outpost. The article was filled with evident canards -- and it linked to a fairly extensive Misplaced Pages article filling in the historical background on the smear! We have the whole cast: the ugly Jews, the Jews in banking and finance, the secretive Jews, the Jewish traitors. We argue that all sorts of people were ''really'' Jews because their ancestors were Jewish. And on the talk page, as here, we have the repeated dismissal of opposition because, after all, it's just those Jews again coming to WP:VOTE, and everyone knows how they stick together. | |||
| Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages is in serious trouble. It is hemorrhaging editors. Its reputation is already low, and scandals like this page diminish it. Worse, it seems clear that Misplaced Pages cannot and will not resist serious efforts by a small team of concerted editors who, as was the case here, can easily override policy and consensus by pretending to adhere to the forms. I've used Wikis since Ward’s Wiki was new; I've been keynote at WikiSym and I've been program chair; I’ve written wikis. Never -- not even during the great wiki mind wipe of 1999 -- have I so completely doubted the efficacy of the WikiWay. The conclusion seems inescapable that Wikipedians have lost the ability to distinguish routine contention from opposition to racist and anti-semitic distortion; if we cannot do that (and I see scant evidence that we can), the wind will blow through the empty corridors of Misplaced Pages? | |||
| :I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Could it happen? If you think not, think again. Events like ] bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute. If Misplaced Pages becomes sufficiently disreputable, an engineer at Google can press a button and, overnight, Misplaced Pages could go back to Page Rank 3, taking our traffic. If Misplaced Pages becomes sufficiently disreputable, donations will dry up. If Misplaced Pages becomes sufficiently disreputable, the remaining editors will be even more dominated by the hacks and the charlatans, the zealots for obscure movements, the gamified WikiLawyers looking for one more scalp and one more barnstar. '''This can still be fixed,''' but it can not be fixed by kicking the can down the road and nodding sagely that, if the anti-semites were regrettable, some of their opponents were sometimes intemperate. ] (]) 15:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored. | |||
| *:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects. | |||
| *:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did: | |||
| *:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart == | |||
| : No, with our current policies and guidelines, Misplaced Pages can not manage this, even if it had the manpower. Part of what I believe is required is no more and no less than a very careful reconsideration and revision of ]. Legal systems around the world have often recognized that marginalized classes of people are the subject of a systemic bias (in fact, this is almost tautological), and respond to this fact with positive (that is, proactive) structures, such as ], which attempt to address said bias. | |||
| {{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| : The belief that one can address this bias with better intentions but without that sort of teeth has been disproven time and time again, there's quite a bit of research that a blind approach leads to likely unintentional (if not intentional "turning a blind eye") discrimination (e.g., . See the research on ], not just our article, but the actual research, to understand one of the dynamics that may underly this intractability.) | |||
| Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : There are very, very difficult questions ahead if people were to agree with me, about how to construct such a system. Legal systems in the United States and around the world continue to struggle with those same questions, in part under the guise of standards of scrutiny. I don't know what the best solution looks like, one that actually provides some reasonable protections but that is resistant to gaming. But I think it has finally come time to admit that we need something more in the way of policy than what we have. Propagating this material has and continues to do harm to living people, even if that harm is diffuse. BLP requires we do something, but BLPGROUP denies us the tools required to do anything. '''If months of propagating Nazi hate literature isn't a good enough reason for change, I don't know what the (redacted) is.''' --]] 15:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the above two comments. I am not Jewish, by the way, so not recognising that article as horrendous anti-Semitism because how are you supposed to know if you're not Jewish, is no excuse. All anyone had to do was google "Jews killed the Tsar" and see what sheer evil they were confronted with, but it seemed no one wanted to make that small effort and almost all just looked the other way.] (]) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - This is the portion of this issue that concerns me the most. We had over two-thirds of editors stating in the 1st deletion attempt that the article was an ] based on the antisemitic canard of ], but ] overruled the community and ruled "no consensus". I am well aware of the fact that admins have to take all relevant arguments into consideration, and that AfDs are ]. But when you have two-thirds of the community pointing to what looks exactly like what it was, Roy should have been damn sure he was right with his overruling. He was not. And that should have been obvious to people who are informed about these types of issues. If he wasn't(or isn't) then he should not have taken the AfD. If he was, then I have to firstly question the competence of someone who couldn't see the obvious. Then to see it discussed in multiple venues, with no action, was disheartening. To say the least. If editors think it's just melodramatic for the editors who stated they don't want to edit someplace that would allow such malfeasance, they haven't been involved enough with the disgusting minds of the ](shudder). The worse kind of antisemites. Smart, educated, informed and with a hatred of Jews that can't be matched. Like Uncle ] one minute, and then when they see the ring/Jew, . Should never have gotten to this point. ] (]) 23:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - Been following this with increasing horror in the past few days. Made my first edits tonight, though recall having a brief run in on this a week or so ago on the articles for deletion discussion. I left before a closure was made. (I think I was in denial since) :/) Has the closing admins given a full explaination of their rationale in closing? If the admin have clue - I have always respected Sandstein's judgement before - then they showed a huge lack of horse sense and gut based clue. Shit stinks. We can all smell. Sounds like the majority of the community smelt the stench. The admins didnt get it. This shows a worrying insensitivity to elements of the comminity IMO ] (]) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It does show significant oversight in this instance, I don't think having an attitude that the article is only antisemitic because an antisemitic source was found to scapegoat is a good thing, although it certainly proves it without question. I think I speak for many editors, at least reading through the comments here, in saying that the article read as antisemitic propaganda before the source was found that designated it as such, and the admins in question should have listened to the communities outcry concerning it. After all, one of the principles of the website is ] if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, and the policies of the website were definitely used intelligently here to defend the article. I'm not sure whose discretion it is whether or not a particular group is worth defending from hate speech, or if this website, with its global influence, should have a clear stance on this, but if I were asked, I would certainly say that antisemitism has no place here, and that it should indeed make rules against hate speech --] (]) 01:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::That will just lead to the circular argument, already represented on that talk page ad nauseum -- that it wasn't really hate speech, just sourced facts that happened to make some uncomfortable for "personal" or otherwise small-minded reasons. Look a number of people here have commented that this situation was more complicated than it needed to be and that we ought to have new rules to deal with this type of situation, but there are two problems with that as I see it: 1) It's all well and good to make such a statement, but no one has proposed ''specific'' mechanisms or procedures that could be employed for such scenarios that wouldn't cause more problems than they solved and that wouldn't be subject to the same kind of mental/semantic gymnastics that kept this article alive for as long as it was despite being in conflict with ''existing'' policies. And 2) Complicated is just the way Misplaced Pages is sometimes. We had a heated content discussion compounded by battleground behaviour; welcome to the project and bear in mind that such debates have gone on for ''a lot'' longer, including on topics of significant social sensitivity. As of today, the page is blanked, likely to be briefly deleted. It won't be coming back in it's recent form, though I daresay claims found within it will rear their ugly head elsewhere. And there will be dedicated contributors with common sense and the will to protect the project in those scenarios too. Yes, administrators acted with perhaps an excess of caution, but don't we like (and demand) caution in our admins, typically? They balance a lot of different considerations, and possible vandalism for the purposes of fringe ideologies are just one of them, if one of the more serious ones. If anything I'd say this situation is just reflective of the need for more admins, as they do seem stretched thin at times of late, and getting administrator attention, let alone attention admin possessing both the time and will to weather the storm of a situation where they can only choose amongst courses of action that are all going to be contentious with one group or another can be difficult at times. But I don't think we need new policy for this contingency, and if we do, it needs to be more refined than "Do something!". If anyone feels the need for new more specific rules is pressing, though, take the matter to ] after the conclusion of this discussion and the AfD, and don't forget to ping me. ] ] 02:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, there was an argument earlier in the debate that suggested a revision of ]. That may help in this instance. I think you're probably right about the request for more admins. It's possible that they simply didn't have the time to look it over properly. It's a difficult situation and I guess that returns to the matter of Producers ]. This sort of behaviour generally leads to admin response, and events such as this will serve well as an example for future possible article creations --] (]) 03:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's right, I forgot about the BLPGROUP suggestion. Well...maybe. It's quite difficult to say anything definitive about how useful it would be without knowing the exact change proposed. And altering BLP to include protections to broad groups would redefine the concept of uphill battles. Now, as I said above, I'm not sure what change is warranted by these circumstances, but if someone ''were'' convinced that a new level of oversight was required here, I'd suggest they look in the direction of the recently updated ] system. It could be put before ArbCom that Judaism (or more specifically, the Jewish people) should be added to the "current areas of conflict" list for the DS system. This would allow admins to apply discretionary sanctions relating to activity on the topic without as much concern about fall-out, since sanctions are allowed for even moderate violations of policy in such cases. Using it to combat the creation of an undesirable article would be a little bit of a twist on the system's usual purpose, which is to maintain and protect existing articles from disruptive activity, but I daresay the general function -- protecting the project in a specific content area prone to heated debate, vandalism, and general disruption, are the same in both cases. I think if you take this and the related discussions to ArbCom, you've a decent shot at getting some significant oversight. ] ] 06:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You do raise some good points. These things aren't always the fault of admins. Once enough of the community had been made aware of the article, the consensus seemed to sweep towards delete. Maybe we could also push to using ] more frequently as a resource? It has some utility on the Talk page but not a significant amount. If it were more popular and had an amount of active watchers, it could help deal with the creation of articles such as this --] (]) 14:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — ] ] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I see it differently. The decision to close the AfD as "no consensus" was perverse. 9/10 administrators would have closed it as "delete." Let's hope the current AfD is not also closed as "keep." At DRN, many of the "Endorse" keep votes said they thought it should be deleted but respected the discretion of the closing administrator. To me that makes no sense, because what then is the purpose of DRN. Add to that many of the regulars there are "inclusionist" tipped the balance. But it's precisely because many editors are sensitive to anti-Semitism that most editors favor deletion. | |||
| ::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The main policy reason for deletion is notability. If the topic were notable, we would be able to identify a body of literature to use as a source and could determine what was significant to the subject and what the different views were. It would not be possible to base the article on an ''IHR'' article, because it would not reflect the weight shown in a hythothetical article about the subject in a reliable source. | |||
| :@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem I see is that there are lots of articles that are just synthesis, where someone picks two words and puts them together and creates their own topic. Generally these pass AfD where the odds of getting an article deleted that should be deleted are about 50%. For example ] and ] have survived AfDs, although no one has agreed the definition or scope. So a libertarian writer said the Republican Party is right-wing socialist because both parties are socialist, and a ''New York Times'' reporter in the 1950s said Peron was a right-wing socialist because he was right-wing and his policies seemed socialist. And of course Tony Blair was on the right of the nominally socialist Labour Party so that's multiple uses of the term. | |||
| :] (]) |
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Andra Febrian report == | |||
| ::'''agreed,''''Misplaced Pages's existence is contingent on preserving a modicum of respect from the mainstream public. One more episode of wikipedia's admins deciding to tolerate a bit of "well-sourced" racism could well land the uproar on the front page of he Times or Le Monde. the next day, Google demotes wikipedia's page rank, and it's all over. Easy calls need to be easy; this was not a tricky question, and the corps of admins failed abjectly. If we can't find policy to bar anti semiotic and racist cant, what the *** are admins, or policy, for? {{unsigned|MarkBernstein}} 03:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| "Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has: | |||
| - caused many edit wars <br/> | |||
| - deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/> | |||
| - not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/> | |||
| - not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/> | |||
| I request that the user is warned. | |||
| ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Mr.Choppers warning request === | |||
| :::<small>I hardly think that writing would cause Google's algorithms to react that way. ] (]) 03:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/> | |||
| '''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/> | |||
| '''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/> | |||
| '''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/> | |||
| '''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/> | |||
| <br/> | |||
| I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12) | |||
| :Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan == | |||
| ::Just for the record, a deletion review is only to determine if the closing admin acted within policy. Not for deciding if the AfD was decided "right". Most closing admins know how to close an AfD or RM within policy so that it cannot be overturned by review. So I wouldn't spend too much time focusing on the review, because even if the closing admin used ], it would be within policy to endorse the close. ] (]) 03:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of ] at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)|Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions}}. ] (]/]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Cannot draftify page == | |||
| :::Question - can anyone suggest an appropriate venue to continue to discuss this issue once this thread is closed? By "this issue" I mean the failure of the system to remove ''gross'' racist/anti-Semitic material, the reluctance of admins to deal with the matter and what I would describe as a widespread tendency among them to avoid contentious disputes and leave those to someone else.] (]) 04:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Remove PCR flag == | |||
| ::::{{u|Smeat75|Smeat}}, the appropriate locations for such a discussion are ], or this very noticeboard (in a new thread, of course, though I do tend to think the Village Pump is a better location in general and especially under the current circumstances). Wherever you host the discussion itself, a posting concerning it at ] is advisable to increase participation. I've also suggested above that those looking for additional oversight in this area might consider viewing the recently overhauled ] system, with an eye towards petitioning ArbCom to add topics concerning the Jewish people to the ]. ] ] 06:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::Many thought that the article should stay, but that the content should be modified to be more appropriate. So the first AfD wasn't only about "removing gross racist/anti-Semitic" content but whether the topic itself should stay. You are not summarizing the first AfD accurately. Content can be always modified later. If you are claiming that everyone who voiced that the topic of Jewish people in historical communist movements is a notable topic are racists, anti-Semitic and somehow linked to sites like Stormfront, you are bordering on a personal attack. --]] 22:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that there is something disturbing in how long time it took to root this out, including the first failed AfD. I think that Jimbo Wales and others who feels some overall responsibility for the project should look into this and in general we as a community should do an evaluation of what went wrong like it’s done here by Smeat75 and Bernstein It’s a case that deservs broad attention so people keep it in mind if something similar happens. Some kind of formal recognition that this was something else than an ordinary content dispute may be in order One point of learning may be that when there is sincere concern that an article is fundamentally flawed and unsound (extremism, hoax or similar) the concern can not be put aside by «no consensus»; one solution would be to direct such cases directly to ArbCom (and blank the article until the case is settled). In this particular case there most probably was a consensus to delete, but the point is that "no consensus" with no formal follow-up shouldn't be an option when there is very deep concern for the state of an article. ] (]) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == "The Testifier" report == | |||
| ::::Thank you for the comment Iselilja, I think that is an idea worth pursuing. I noticed that on ]'s talk page, he is the admin that closed the first AfD, there are two warnings from bots telling him that he shouldn't have removed the template for Articles from Deletion from Jews and Communism the day it was nominated for deletion and he shouldn't have removed other peoples' comments from the discussion. I looked at the edit history of the deletion discussion and the article and talk page but I could not see any edits from him removing comments. I don't know if there is some way that admins can erase things from edit histories as well as removing comments. I have asked him to explain on his talk page .] (]) 14:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Problem with creating user talk page == | |||
| :::::Forget that comment above, he has replied and it seems to be confusion caused by a malfunctioning bot.] (]) 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::::::Please see for what appears to be a logical explaination for how this happened. -- ] ] 18:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| }} | |||
| Hi User {{user|RoySmith}}, a few points: | |||
| Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ] (]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #Until this moment I had no idea you were an admin, why don't you indicate that on your own user page with some sort of icon or statement so that it avoids confusion and misunderstanding and it be clear you are one when you get involved in controversially closing controversial AfDs such as the now notorious ] especially? In some previous discussions I had no idea you were an admin, and now I had to do a special search to find out and confirm that you are an admin. Or maybe I am missing something and my PC just doesn't pick up the icon? | |||
| #It would be fascinating to know your thoughts now that as a '''direct result''' of your initial decision to override a clear more than two thirds majority, actually almost a two to one majority (22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep) of many users in the original AfD -- who all said then what is now going to happen as a result of the second AfD (]), i.e. ] because the original article is a direct copy of material taken from a bunch of disgusting neo-Nazi pseudo-research -- it has now come to this sorry state that has created so much bitterness, a huge split in the WP community and possible sanctions against the creators and defenders of the Jews & Communism article. Just look at what they are going through now, they could have been prevented from harming themselves had you nipped this in the bud based on a solid majority, not to mention what this is doing to WP as this cancerous topic metastasizes and grows even more toxic in its ongoing mushroom cloud radioactive fallout. | |||
| #It is not too late to explain yourself. Even Director it's staunchest defender now realizes the sheer blunder and sees the wrong of it and calls for the article to be blown up, even though he was obviously very fond of the topic and fought to the death to defend it regardless of how rotten it all was as anyone with a working nose/conscience could smell that. There needs to be a rational answer that shows some remorse and retraction on your side and not some gibberish about "policies" or whatnot in a distracting flurry of ] as to how you could have allowed such a disaster to go on and unfold as it has been doing still with no end in sight (and certainly no responsible oversight) at this time. You overlooked a simple rule of real life or in any democracy as ] put it "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but '''you cannot fool all the people all the time'''." | |||
| #You must take your share of the responsibility for what has transpired and you must offer an unconditional apology for allowing neo-Nazi hate onto WP, even if out of massive ignorance or well-intentioned motives, but there cannot be any excuse for a gross failure of judgement on your part and your part alone. If you don't you should be subject to some sort of very serious sanction for your failure and the damage it has brought upon WP and its good name. | |||
| #You should also reverse your closing of the first AfD with the simple explanation that it was taken from an indefensible source and had you known you would never have done what you did. | |||
| :I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| To sum up, not only was there no oversight when there were many chances to do so especially during the frivolous ANI requests launched by Potocnik and Director and others' pleadings at ANI and even on Jimbo Wales' page but in your case the "oversight" (and as an admin you have that responsibility at all times) that allowed this to happen was not just passive but actively ''counter''productive right off the bat as is evidenced right now by all the fallout from this fiasco and the abyss it has opened up at the feet of WP. Your response is awaited. Thank you so much in advance, ] (]) 10:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 == | |||
| : Hmmm. I just assumed if people wanted to know if I was an admin, they could look me up on ]. I certainly don't make a secret of it. However, if you think it would be useful for me to put something on my user page, I would be glad to oblige. As for the rest of the rant above, my explanation was in my closing statement for the AfD. If that doesn't satisfy you, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get dragged into this slugfest. -- ] ] 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] from the past month (December 2024). | |||
| :Thank you for that post Izak, well said, I completely agree with all of it.] (]) 12:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> | |||
| :The issue was brought up at deletion review and there was "no consensus" to overturn the "no consensus" decision of the AfD. While that is not a ringing endorsement, and does not mean the closing of the first AfD was correct, it does mean that we are not likely to get anywhere pursuing this it. ] (]) 18:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| ] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
| ===Involved / uninvolved editors=== | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| ] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
| *'''Comment''' on the issue of involved versus uninvolved editors: | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| :I first became aware of this article when it was mentioned at ANI following the first AfD. The title alone drew my attention rather strongly. | |||
| |] | |||
| :I suspect a large number of editors may be in the same position, because the increase in the number of respondents between the first AfD and the second AfD is really very substantial. | |||
| |] | |||
| :I would suggest (but leave it to others to judge) that the line between 'involved' and 'uninvolved' be drawn at those editors who were involved before the first AfD, because surely part of the point of the AfD and ANI process is to get input from the wider community; it could seem perverse to then ignore the views of those members of the wider community who choose at that point to comment. | |||
| |] | |||
| :L&K, ] (]) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| ::Well, in that case, I was made aware of it just under a week before the second AfD was opened due to the two RfCs on the article talk page. I imagine many of the ''"involved"'' editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy ] has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on --] (]) 18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| :::{{tq|"many of the ''"involved"'' editors may be recent due to the amount of controversy ] has been generating and the different boards it had been put up on"}}. Exactly. ] (]) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ::::I think that's going/gone away as an issue now as "non-involved" have since posted and made the response more balanced. But the issue ''was'' not so much involved/noninvolved but one side of a content dispute (call it "involved") loading a discussion <u>on behaviour</u> here with little input from those who had not taken a position in that content dispute. ] (]) 18:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :::::Luckily, there are very few editors who support blatant anti-semitism (or other forms of racism and bigotry), and hence in this case most editors will be on one side of the content issue. In this case, these editors also were the ones on the receiving side of Directors comments. --] (]) 20:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| :::::That is what I understood the concern to be as well. But then, clarification on this matter was ignored for a good bit as several editors pointed out that a majority of the editors who had responded to this thread (even at the time this issue was first raised) had never been involved in any form of content dispute with either party, having become "involved" at the juncture of the still-ongoing AfD. Despite these efforts at clarity, the characterization of this discussion as mostly the effort of a mob with an axe to grind against the pair being discussed persisted, and I fear it will now muddy the waters some for the duration of the discussion. I do tend to agree with DeCausa that the concern has been addressed some by the arrival of more editors through the normal noticeboard traffic, as was largely inevitable, but this aspect has now gained so much traction, I think the spectre of "revenge" votes stands a good chance of being factored into any response taken here at a much higher level than it ever should be, as the parties out to make an example of these two, while present, are only a slim, slim minority in the discussion. Two, maybe three contributors, depending on how you parse their motives. | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] '''Oversight changes''' | |||
| :::::Allow me to clarify the extent of my own involvement in the pages and discussions of relevance here -- not because I want to make the case for why ''my'' perspectives on the whole affair should be given non-mitigated weight (this whole discussion is going to get absurdly congested if each party feels compelled to delineate where they came into the matter and in what context the operated, which is what I was afraid was about to happen), but because I think my case is fairly indicative of those editors who might be described as quasi-involved -- that is to say, they participated in the most recent AfD, the ANIs, or the article talk page, but were never on opposing sides of a content issue with either of the editors who are the subject of this discussion. I came to be aware of the toxic situation on that article through ] and I commented twice in that discussion ( ); the gist of my comments was that, while no one should be proud of what was going at that page, the two most problematic personalities, from what I had observed, were Director and Producer, who were vastly more likely to denigrate the perspectives of their opposition, to make personal attacks, to make implications of bad-faith and ulterior motives without evidence, and generally fail to observe ] broadly. The two just seemed ''completely'' incapable, at least by that point in the discussion, of coping with the notion that others disagreed so strongly with them and every one of their responses to opposition contained some degree of vitriol. I had hoped that a little community attention, including from admins, might put the pair, and others tending towards a combative mindset, on better behaviour, but I saw no really productive benefit in getting involved in the ongoing, and devolving, debate on the article talk page over the crux of whether the content in the article itself was antisemitic and/or synthesis and stayed well-clear of it, but I continued to be concerned about the abandon with which civility standards were trampled there and the general battleground attitudes at work, so I put the talk page on my watchlist. I made on the talk page, directed at Director after he speculated on the motives of another editor in a matter that didn't even directly concern him and then told said editor to "go away"; I informed him that neither action was in his purview, that it was uncivil and that it seemed consistent with the ] behaviour many involved editors had accused him of. I never had a direct exchange with him or any other party over the content itself, nor was I personally the subject of derogatory comments from anybody (which may make me unique in the history of that article). My last involvement with the article was in] wherein I never made a formal vote and tried to make it clear that my main concern was not the content itself, but how broke the process of discussion itself was on the page and that, regardless of whether or not the content was antisemitic or not, or appropriately sourced, some editors there were in their right to believe the situation could never be fixed through usually collaborative effort because of the battleground mentality that presided there. | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| :::::I think this type of story is much more common to the editors who have commented above than is the scenario of an editor who duked it out over the content of the article (and more lucky me, for the fact that I didn't have to step into that quagmire). Was I involved? Well, only to the extent that I observed a great deal acrimony and editors with less than acceptable stance on civility and commented as such. In the cases of others who did the same, or even commented narrowly within the last AfD and never interacted with Director or Producer, I think it's a serious mischaracterization to dismiss their perspectives as biased, given the entire point of a discussion such as this is to consider behavioural issues. Again, I think the call for a topic ban is premature, for Director at least. But that doesn't mean I want the valid opinions of other editors quashed or treated as tainted simply because they happened upon this mess a little earlier than others. ] ] 21:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| @Balaenoptera, that's pretty much everyone. I don't agree with that. I'd rather go for the ''second AfD'' since the point of having "uninvolved" editor input is that those editors haven't been advocating content changes and hence are more objective in viewing behavior as such. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :That said, I imagine most of those involved in the ''second AfD'' had not been directly involved with you on the article, that is to say, the "history of disruptive editing" in question --] (]) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, I said ''before'' the second AfD, and I was just going along with the notion of an "AfD-based" criterion. Editors viewed as "involved" should I think obviously be simply those involved in content disputes on the article talkpage. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I apologise, I misread "I'd rather go for the ''second AfD''" as meaning those involved in it. That makes more sense --] (]) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
| :::I think we all need to stop talking about this in terms of a timeline and specific landmarks, prior to which no editor who observed the mess is capable of being given full weight here. That approach, aside from being artificial and reflected nowhere in policy, removes any consideration of context. Administrators are not simpletons and we do not need to provide guidelines as to which editor's perspectives are to be "trusted" more than others -- nor do I think we would be welcome in making the effort. Any responding admins have every link at their disposal here to review the comments and involvement of all parties and to decided whether they are presenting a factual account of events or being led by prior bias. I don't think you have much to be concerned over, Director - as things are moving, it seems you will likely avoid any kind of topic ban, if not by the hugest margin. But regardless of whether or not that prediction bears out, it's not our place to be deconstructing the motives and general capacity for neutrality of one-another with regard to this already convoluted situation, at least not with the broad strokes that are now being suggested. ] ] 22:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Following ], ] was adopted as a ]. | |||
| *'''Comment:''' I'm an AfD regular. I noticed this at AfD the first but didn't comment because I didn't understand the content (so i was unlikely to provide a unique insight) and saw that there appeared to be a significant number of different voices. I'd probably do the same if a similar situation arose again with similar content and similar arguements at AfD. ] (]) 03:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space. | |||
| ::I agree, the content as presented was not understandable. That's why people were trying to edit it to something that made more sense. It says a lot about an article, when you come across an encyclopedia article and walk away with no better understanding of the subject matter. lol ] (]) 03:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Technical news''' | |||
| * The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions. | |||
| ] '''Arbitration''' | |||
| *'''Note''' - I noticed the nomination (2nd one) on the "Articles for Deletion" page as I was defending another article that had been nominated the same day, so I suppose that would qualify me as "uninvolved"? Even so, if we are to say that only 'uninvolved' editors can exert opinions about an issue, we would have to consider that without involved parties to exert their testimony on what happened, we would be largely clueless as to what actually happened. Of course we shouldn't interpret the opinions of involved editors as a "neutral and unbiased perspective" that should directly affect the outcome of the case, but the opinions of involved editors are still valuable in the regard that they help us understand what actually happened. You're never going to have a "witness to a crime" sitting on the jury, but that doesn't mean their opinion and what they have to say ''shouldn't be said.'' ] ] ] 10:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}. | |||
| ** Good point. | |||
| ** DIREKTOR and PRODUCER/Potočnik are subjected to very serious accusations | |||
| ** it is necessary to present evidence for such serious accusations. Such evidence can, of course be presented and discussed by all editors, <u>both involved and uninvolved</u>. Closing (uninvolved) administrator will consider the strength of the argument when deciding if accusations are justified | |||
| **# if such accusations are proven not to be justified all editors who made unjustified accusations should be <u>boomeranged</u> | |||
| **# if accusations about some kind of travelling circus (active not only in topics relating to Jews, but also in other topic areas like communism, ARBMAC, ... ) would be proven, then <u>all members of that travelling circus should be banned from all topic areas they were active</u>.--] (]) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| User {{user|Antidiskriminator}} cut out the hysterics and histrionics please. It's an open and shut case as anyone can see. First of all on Potocnik's current user page it says he has "{{tl|retired}}", it would seem as an open admission of ] and therefore you should quit your defending him when he himself has gone and even Director admits that the original offending article must be deleted, so what you are doing now makes absolutely no sense at all! Kindly calm down and reconsider your actions or you will land up defending what cannot and should not be defended. This summarizes the situation in simple terms. On 27 February 2014 Potocnik posted an article on "Jews & Communism" . This is what the behavior of Potocnik and Director has amounted to as evidenced by almost every diff from them since (far too many to list here, feel free to click on them all at {{User|Potočnik}} and {{User|Director}}) their behavior throughout is a classic case of violating ]; ], ], ] and of violating ], ], ] and ] for which they were eventually blocked and warned by user {{user|Jehochman}} and that is just the tip of the iceberg. What is happening to them now can be explained in four simple steps: '''1''' Potocnik, then known as "PRODUCER" with lots of "citations" posts an article called "Jews and Communism" that he and Director, then known as "DIREKTOR" working in almost indistinguishable tandem like in a ], defend to the death, ridiculing, belittling and attacking any users who get in their way to keep ''their'' ] material up all the time in violation of ]. '''2'''The article is eventually proven to be a proven "cut and paste" carbon copy of tendentious pseudo-research from an indefensible and hate-mongering antisemitic neo-Nazi site and organization (this is assuming you understand the implications of doing that). '''3''' Potocnik and Director realize they have been caught red-handed. First they change and downgrade their user names and then Potocnik says "goodbye" and Director admits his blunders and joins calls to "delete" the offending article. '''4''' However, '''every single''' edit, revert, rollback, attack that Potocnik and Director undertook, and a vast majority of their comments and actions on the talk pages and beyond, shows the vehemence, nastiness, downright scariness and open and arrogant disregard for the contributions of others, of the many experienced editors also too many to mention by now but they are all in the article' edit history, for anyone to see just how much effort went into salvaging even this wreck of an article and even so facing a barrage of unjustified and unjustifiable harassment from the Potocnik and Director team and a few others who thought it was just "marvelous" to help them in an effort to defend every detail and especially the original article's clear and obvious anti-Jewish and antisemitic ''slant'' (that Director euphemistically used to refer to as its "scope") all in the original article and much in it during its existence that easily can be seen by anyone with clear unbiased eyes and has the time and stomach for it by clicking on virtually most of the diffs available on their user histories at User {{User|Potočnik}} and {{User|Director}}. Feel free to do so, it's all there, but please do not create panic and confusion when it is all very clear. Thanks, ] (]) 11:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Miscellaneous''' | |||
| ===Tactical Remorse=== | |||
| * A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ] | |||
| Above, Director writes: | |||
| ---- | |||
| :''...However, that is just not how the human mind perceives rudeness.. or else you would be reporting MarkBernstein for his outrageously offensive conduct, in my view far more vitriolic than anything I ever wrote. Of corse, him being right, it seems its ok if he repeatedly claims I support antisemitism, implying I knowingly did so. That's personal attack and slander of the highest order. Why isn't he "on trial" here? I'm not saying he should be, but I hope I got my point across. If I was "right", and I was opposing censorship of reliable non-cherry-picked sources against biased POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article, then I doubt my conduct would be perceived in such a negative light. -- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{center|{{flatlist| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }}}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 --> | |||
| == user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation == | |||
| This false equivalence (and this personal attack) should make clear to any reader that ]'s remorse is merely a tactic. Once again, Producer and Director are working in apparent concert here: Producer retiring in silence while Director is shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that he has been defending anti-semitic cant. Note, too, how even now Director stands by his "reliable non-cherry-picked" sources; the only thing wrong with the ghastly article, and with his staunch defense of every insinuation, distortion, and lie it contained, is that it was also plagiarized. Those, like myself, who wish to preserve NPOV are "biased POV pushers" and attempts to remove specious arguments are balance the article are "disrupting". Director sees only the technical violation -- the indefensible plagiarism -- and is expressly prepared to do it all over again. He doesn't, even now, regret the faults of the article; he regrets getting caught in a copyvio that makes it harder for him to defend it right now. | |||
| {{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| repost from archive: | |||
| The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither. | |||
| Note, too, that once more ] chooses to single out an editor he thinks to be Jewish, claims to be deeply wronged ("personal attack and slander of the highest order"!) and emphasizes the collective danger of plural "POV-pushers deliberately disrupting the article", which he intends to be heards as a reference "other editors" by admins but which will be understood as an allusion to "the International Conspiracy Of The Jews" by certain other parties . And once again he threatens editors with reports, trials, sanctions (If he were I, I bet he'd point to the word "slander" above and escalate WP:NLT immediately.) | |||
| I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ]. | |||
| After all, how '''could''' Director be expected to know the anti-semitic leanings of an article he didn't write? How could the admins be expected to know? ''Perhaps by reading it?'' Director is correct to observe that one difference between him and me (and almost everyone else!) in this matter is that he has been wrong, and in the wrong. | |||
| '''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) '' | |||
| Director hopes that this very limited display of remorse will save his Misplaced Pages account, and with it some time, inconvenience, and some small residual influence. The effort is clumsy: thorough contrition would have cost him nothing, but clearly he cannot stomach that. Whether Producer will be rejoining him here under the same name, under a new name, or whether the two were ever distinguishable, is an interesting question to which it seems unlikely we shall ever learn an answer. Once more, two editors acting in close cooperation are poised to emerge from this shameful and costly disaster with scant effective sanction. | |||
| * : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version | |||
| * : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page." | |||
| * : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template). | |||
| * : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}} | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary. | |||
| * JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached" | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary. | |||
| * : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention. | |||
| * : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate. | |||
| * : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate." | |||
| * At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page." | |||
| ** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.) | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it". | |||
| * ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa'' | |||
| '''What damage could editors this dedicated wreak if they thought things though?''' Director and Producer act in such tight concert that they seem to be socks; more clever operatives would adopt more distinct personae who sometimes agreed, sometimes differed, and who had distinct interests. More resourceful operatives would recruit a parcel of agents to work with them from distant locations -- a few people in Bangalore, a few in Russia, perhaps a small office in Ireland -- each editing quietly and each prepared to chime in when needed at AN/I or Arbcom or AfD to back them up. Smarter operatives would choose a cause (or perhaps a client?) less hideous. Two zealots pursuing a lost and discredited crusade have tied Misplaced Pages in knots; what couldn't a sensible and unscrupulous PR team with achieve with a few dozen internet accounts and a few thousand dollars? ] (]) 14:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Interesting point. Editor who worked with them and chimed in at this AN to back them up... That resembles what one editor did here.--] (]) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Antidiskriminator, if you have an accusation, you should be brave enough to make it. Please don't hide behind a vague allusion of impropriety. MarkBernstein is actually doing something after years of neglect from the entire community. What are you doing? You seem to be supporting people who knowingly discriminate. As Antidiskriminator, the only question is why? Does your personal relationship to their part of the world have anything to do with it? Is this some sort of nationalism? I'm not accusing, I'm asking in an effort to understand. Please enlighten us. ] (]) 16:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::My comment was related to editor who is, like me, opposed to ban here. I already presented about him coming here to create a false narrative which paint all three of them in a good light, forgetting to mention their block logs. One () at ] article (to which three of them are one of main contributors) made me additionally worried and convinced that it is necessary to: | |||
| :::# gather as much evidence as possible about the activities of this group and if evidence prove accusations | |||
| :::# to reveal all members of this group | |||
| :::# to reveal all topic areas in which they operated | |||
| :::# to impose appropriate bans to all of them in order to prevent them to continue their activities in future | |||
| ::: Limiting discussion only to one article (Jews and Communism) and one nation (Jews) would probably be discriminatory.--] (]) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you for your explanation. Your comment "That resembles what one editor did here" sounds like a veiled accusation against MarkBernstein. Based on your explanation, that's not the case, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who misunderstood. I would caution about expanding this nomination to include other areas outside Jews and Communism, because that would be a witch hunt. They have previously been sanctioned in other areas. It appears, after that, they took their show on the road to other areas of interest, using the same tactics. My goal is to separate these two, and if they wish to separate by choice, that's fine with me. It would be nice to back it up with some sort of enforcement, just in case they change their mind. If people wish to do an in-depth investigation of a potential terrorist plot that may involve lots of other people, I think that's outside the scope of this nomination. ] (]) 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template. | |||
| *Note to User {{user|Antidiskriminator}}: Stop living in the past. In the past few days, much water has passed under the bridge that you seem to be blind to. Potocnik has voluntarily "retired" from WP and Director agrees that the "]" article ''must'' be deleted because it's essentially a fraud now proven to be copied from an article from a neo-Nazi organization. In fact, the entire article has now been completely blanked by an admin as a copyright violation because the material comes from NAZIS. Do you even know what that means?? Nazis, yes Nazis, writing about the "history" of the Jews, that's like having Adolf Hitler's '']'' become the official WP version and the evil "standard" of all things Jewish!!! Do you even see the absurdity of that?? And that is what Potocnik wanted to sneakily foist on WP and what Director defended to the death til it blew up in his face!! At this point in time, by blindly defending Potocnik and Director you are verging into behavior than can only be classed as ] and ] in violation of ] and ]. I would strongly suggest you quit whilst you are still ahead and go edit in some other non-controversial area that you enjoy. You would be well-advised to read ] that may help calm your frustrations and jitters at this point. Thank you so much, ] (]) 12:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.". | |||
| ::* You did not understand my position here. I do not defend PRODUCER/Potocnik and DIREKTOR. Many editors presented very serious accusations against them for tag-teaming aimed to tendentiously edit wikipedia. My position here is that <u>it is impossible to deal with this partially</u>. | |||
| * JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}} | |||
| ::*# If gathered evidence justify accusations, the bans should be issued to: | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing. | |||
| ::*## all members of this group | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit. | |||
| ::*## for all topic areas in which they operated | |||
| ::*# If not, editors who wrote serious accusations without justification should be boomeranged. | |||
| ::* I sincerely apologize if I am wrong, but I think that issuing ban only to one member of the team for only one limited topic area is what is absurd here. --] (]) 16:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Antidiskriminator is right; I did not understand Izak's point, it seemed way off-base. He was actually saying the opposite of what Izak was criticizing him for. ] (]) 16:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| --- | |||
| === An Error, And A Shame === | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI. | |||
| {{archivetop|The proposals/discussion above is reopened ] (]) 19:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| * Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation. | |||
| :''<small>I don't know the correct form, etiquette, or indeed forum for posting this. Forgive its incorrect placement if it is in fact wrongly situated.</small>'' | |||
| As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In my opinion, ]'s closure of this is a mistake, and the failure of admins to take action is an injustice. I further observe that a just-begun complaint against me at AN/I, which BMK also closed in the same manner, concluded with the suggestion that this was the appropriate venue for discussion. | |||
| :Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It further seems prudent to maintain a discussion area on this topic and its aftermath briefly, as the AfD is due to be closed shortly. This discussion may be generating a good deal of heat, but it is in the immediate interests of the project that it take place here and not -- as may otherwise be the case -- on editorial pages and in magazines. | |||
| ::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Reposted above from archive, see ] | |||
| Finally, it astonishes me that no admin and (for that matter) no board member has seen fit to take action here. I had assumed that the delay was procedural -- that it made good sense to await the conclusion of the AfD and then to dispose of this matter. Does '''any''' admin wish now to step forward and affirm that this matter has been correctly handled throughout? That this is a reasonable way for WIkipedia to operate, and that ] is a valuable asset to the project, one to which the community of editors can point with pride? ] (]) 14:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page: | |||
| :Thank you Mark,I also '''''strongly protest''''' the closure of that thread by a non-admin on the grounds that it is "disruptive". This is more of the "go away and leave us alone" mentality that has plagued the issues around this article from the beginning. If we cannot discuss those issues here, where can we discuss them?] (]) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was actually considering closing the threads last night, and decided not to purely because I didn't need the inevitable follow up drama in my life. Had I closed them, however, I would have instituted the topic ban for Potočnik, and closed the topic ban thread on Director as not having sufficient consensus, but with an admonishment that he escaped a topic ban by a thread. I will say that I feel {{u|Beyond My Ken}}'s close to be insufficiently well thought out and his rationale insufficiently detailed. I will not, however, revert it (because I don't need the inevitable follow up drama in my life). | |||
| :::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities. | |||
| ::To {{u|MarkBernstein}}, I will comment that header titles like "An Error, And A Shame" go a great way towards robbing the poster's comments of any credibility. An overly dramatic, non-descriptive title does nothing except make people roll their eyes at the title, and that influences how they read everything that comes after it. Dramatic pleas and admonishments in bold text also do nothing for your case. Really, you might have actually gotten the close you were looking for if you didn't come across as being, well, a rant. ] ] 15:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. | |||
| :::'''Comment''' I would strongly support the line that Sven would have taken. That closure would have satisfied the evident concerns of the community I suspect. ] (]) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{u|Sven Manguard}}, at some point I think you have to expect that reasoned debate will devolve into outrage if unvarnished racism can be aggressively defended here without penalty for its defenders. I am way beyond furious, which is why I rescue myself from this discussion. Coming from an editor who writes mostly about guitar effects, I think this says something.--] (]) 15:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| ::: Misplaced Pages has been marred for months ]. The article could not be substantially improved, for its self-appointed defenders acerbically reverted any attempts to ameliorate its viciousness. The article could not be deleted because the article's few defenders were able to establish a case for the lack of consensus and ably used the project's disciplinary process against all comers. The only available recourse ''within Misplaced Pages'' was a second AfD that would establish a consensus. To establish a decisive consensus, it was (and, alas, remains) necessary to be emphatic. | |||
| I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP. | |||
| ::: AM I a rant? I have keynoted WikiSym, and served as its program chair. I have written and nurtured wikis since long before Misplaced Pages began. I have invested a great deal of time on this AfD, which I composed with great care and which has demanded constant attention. I chose to consult this forum rather than a larger and more conspicuous platform because I believed this forum would be better for the project. I have done this under my own name and on the record; any person who wished to know who this emphatic interlocutor might be has only to glance at my user page or Google my name. | |||
| ::: I deserved better of the project. And I deserved better of you. ] (]) 15:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::An article that promotes blatant anti-Semitism is on this site for months and those who protest about it are told "don't be dramatic, don't rant, go away and shut up". It isn't right.] (]) 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You've gotten so emotionally involved in the outcome of this debate that yes, you are in fact, being a rant. Right now, in the post immediately above this one, you are being a rant. Before, when you started making statements expressing your outrage, using bold text, you were being a rant. Being a rant isn't a permanent thing; I am sure that in other discussions, at other times, you're not a rant. The issue at the heart of this discussion is a valid one, and your opinion on the matter is also valid. How you have chosen to express that opinion in this discussion, however, is problematic. Any uninvolved reader can tell immediately that you are putting way too much emotion into everything you say, and that reflects badly on your comments. You really do need to take a step back and let all of this play out without you, because it's very obvious that you are burning out over this. ] ] 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I hope you're talking about me and not {{u|MarkBernstein}}. I've been spitting furry for days, but Mark has somehow managed to intelligently and patiently explain himself throughout this whole process. I can't fathom how he does it. Ok, that is all.--] (]) 16:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't know who he is talking about, my guess is Mark, but maybe he means all three of us.] (]) 16:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::can we stick to the point here please. I am well aware of the intense frustration, trauma and hurt this horrible issue has generated, but can we get this closure overturned. I would favour and support a closure of the type advocated by Sven. ] (]) 16:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you DD2K for reopening the nomination and asking for admin action. ] (]) 16:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. My guess is that BMK is just frustrated by the constant bickering. So to keep the discussion at a level below the histrionic phase, let's just let an admin close the proposals without any more back and forths. There is no need to continue pointing out the obvious, everything is there for anyone to see. So please, everyone, I beg of you to stop making one post after the other. Thanks. ] (]) 16:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ec}}:This does need an admin close, taking into account the arguments, the quality of consensus and the self-bans offered, and taking any consequent actions. Just announcing that the drama must stop, at once, won't work. But I quite understand Sven's unwillingness to take it on. Would it be easier if we - or rather you the admins - proceed as with some difficult RFCs? You could announce that a panel of three admins will share the burden of closing, indicate how long that's likely to take, and close the thread to further input pending the formal close. I suspect that would be acceptable if the delay was reasonable - and I'd imagine a couple of days or so to form the panel and deliberate would seem acceptable. ] (]) 16:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I would support that approach. Lets be done with it, and not just kick it down the road. ] (]) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| For my part, I am just astonished that I can now be openly called a psychotic fanatical racist by a sockpuppeteer, on this my project of many years, without so much as an admonishment. That the user MarkBernstein can write one blatant attack essay after another, deliberately misrepresenting and disregarding the facts, playing on people's uninformed outrage, without someone pointing him to NPA; pointing out that attacking a fellow user in such a manner, repeatedly, without support, is slander of the highest order. I'm just waiting for his next essay, where he will again omit basic facts, thus paint me as a monster, and "appeal" to everyone's "decency", implicitly (or even directly) calling any opposition bigoted if they do not accept his fantastical perceptions. This is highly malicious, manipulative behavior, that should not be thus tolerated on our project, under any circumstances. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 17:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think you need worry. This thread (and others) has become no more than the "outraged" talking amongst themselves. I don't think it now attracts much outside attention. It probably is time for it to be put out of its misery. ] (]) 18:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. ] (]) 19:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == 2014 Latakia Offensive == | |||
| ] is persistently edit warring over the last few weeks on the article ] to include a controversial statement regarding the supposed "continuation of the ]" in this article. This user is misusing references to support this statement, with one reference being a deadlink, and one reference even specifically describing such a statement as a 'hoax'.. This user has recently taken to deleting sources that have been added. This is an a notable example I believe of ], ] and ]. Please can someone intervene to make sure wikipedia policy is being applied correctly? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| First, I am not the only one reverting user 94.197.120..., several other editors (at least three) have also reverted his removal of the sourced information at the article page along with its sources (this can be checked by the edit history of the article) in the same time period. I reverted him maybe once or twice over a period of several days, other times he was reverted by the other editors (who he also promptly reverted). Second, I am highly offended by his accusation that I am misusing references to support a statement regarding the supposed "continuation of the ]" in this article, which I myself did not edit into the article. The previous editor used even more inflamatory language, which I watered down for sake of compromise with another editor who did not like it and was in an edit war with that other editor. After I watered it down their edit war stopped. Further, the anonymous user used in-proper language during the removal of information ALONG with its SOURCES, calling in the edit summary ether us for inserting it or those that stated the information ''childish warmongering'' (violation of Misplaced Pages: Civility). Lastly, the sentence does not state in any way a genocide or massacre occurred during the offensive as user 94.197. is making it out. The full paragraph, properly per the sources, states that the flight of civilians and Turkish involvement during the rebel assault on the Armenian town ''has lead some to compare the offensive with and view it as the massacre of Armenians that occurred during the Armenian Genocide''. Those ''some'' in the sources being the Armenian president (), multiple US Congressmen () residents of the town themselves () and other notable personalities. I would think calling the statements of the Armenian president and US congressmen childish warmongering shows a high level of non-neutral POV. As for the broken link (which was most likely broken during the reverts) he could have just asked for it to be fixed like this . And again, they were not comparing any killings to the Armenian genocide, instead they were comparing the flight of the Armenians to the forced evacuations of the Armenians during the genocide. I have now watered down the statement even more for sake of compromise that they were comparing the displacement to the exodus that occurred during the genocide, not to any killings. In any case, the comparisons to the Armenian genocide were notable enough and frequent enough in the news that in some form they need to be presented in the article on the offensive. Pushing one singular POV for the removal of the properly sourced information would not be acceptable in any way per Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality. So if anybody was engaged in an improper edit war it would be user 94.197.120.... I would be gladly open to a dialogue with him on proper compromise wording of the text, but he has shown no sign of such desire. I was even thinking of reporting the issue myself to an administrator for possible protection of the page from un-registered users. But since he has raised the issue for me, I would like to formally ask what proper course over the situation could be done, or what compromise solution could be found? As for his allegation that I have taken to deleting sources that have been added I was also offended. Accidental removal of a source or two during the reverts is possible, but intentional no! Regards! ] (]) 22:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can an admin ''please'' take a look at this article? ] is still showing intransigence with this exact same controversial sentence, and insisting the sources state things they in fact do not (i.e. only one reference mentions offical non anecdotal Armenian concerns regarding Turkish involvement in the offensive). This is really starting to get ridiculous, making ] edits that have little to do with the article and arguing the minute details of Sharia law. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::To claify the problem regarding the ] sentence in the lede. The issue of ''present day'' alleged Turkish involvement—that actually relates to the article in question—and connections to ''past'' "genocides" is highly problematic. None of the sources provided state that Turkish involvement is the reason the Armenian genocide is being evoked. Not the Armenian presidential statement. Not the Armenian residents statements. Not Kim Kardashin's tweet. Not even the Armenian National Committee of America letter to Obama mentioned in the Washington Post article, which is the only source provided (other than a few anecdotal remarks by Kessab residents) that is actually concerned with ''present day'' Turkish involvement in the offensive. You need to understand that Turkish ''contemporary'' involvement in Latakia vis-à-vis the Armenian genocide is an extremely specific and controversial accusation which isn't stated in the sources. Yes, Turkish involvement in the offensive is alleged. Yes, the historical context of the Armenian genocide is evoked. But the two are never specifically linked to present day events in the sources. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::You don't seem to get it, I was not the one who added the part about alleged Turkish involvement, that was some other editor weeks ago. What I have been reverting this whole time is your unsourced OR about an ''Armenian lobby'' being the one who is making the comparison. Up until tonight you never voiced direct concerns specifically about the part on alleged Turkish involvement. You should have said that a week ago and I would have removed it if it wasn't in the sources, which I did tonight after you pointed that out for the first time. And if you are so bothered about the sourced part where rebels want to impose Shari law on the minorities why did you yourself add the source in the first place and now suddenly when the extreme jihadist views are mentioned you think of it as undue weight? In any case, the part about the Turks has been removed (per your wish), your part about an Armenian lobby is unsourced so it can not by any means go into the article, and the part about the sharia law I removed (per your wish, although it IS in the source) but the part about jihadi views in addition to other more tolerant rebels stays since its properly sourced. Hope the wording is finally satisfactory to you. ] (]) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The problem with the sentence still exists in that it isn't fleshed out and isn't properly explained. The edit regarding the ] is not ] at all. Every representative mentioned in the penning the official letter to Obama is a member of the except for ], who is very much a prominent advocate of Armenian issues and has been desciribed as of the ]. If the term Armenian Lobby bothers you so much the ] can be used as they are spearheading the Armenian attention surrounding Kassab. Also the jihad quotes you picked out (and used in the most scandalous way possible) are problematic due to opposition PR disagreements not being a major factor of the fighting, and the quoted Non Profit worker not at all being specific (is he referring to ISIS or al Nusru or some other faction? He doesn't say), or even explicitly talking about Latakia (rather than the Syrian Opposition in general).<br>Also, the small issue of personal attacks. There is no need to accuse me of wanting to add clarifying material to a wikipedia article because it the issue "hurts" me, as you did . Then you changed this phrasing as if no one would notice . | |||
| ::::::Who is being selective now, not all of the congressmen are members of the Armenian caucus, and most surely the Armenian president, the military analyst, Kasab residents themselves or Kim Kardashian are also not part of the caucus. So neutral wording would have been, as it is, ''some''. ''and used in the most scandalous way possible'' You mean it was scandalous because I quoted almost word-for-word what the source says? It's your personal issue if you don't like what the source says because Misplaced Pages is edited based on sources not our own POV. In any case, for sake of compromise, I will attribute the ''scandalous'' part of the source to the person who pointed it out and put it under quotation marks. ] (]) 07:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :You are dumping all the comparisons of genocide in one quote farming sentence with no attribution. And inserting the incredibly specific views of one Middle East expert when talking about the Syrian opposition (unrelated to the article) in general is the definition of ]. Serious tone issues also. You have deleted the statement by the president of Armenia yet included this obscure academic? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::The statement of the Armenian president is in the ''foreign reaction'' section. You would notice this if you bothered to read the whole article. And the comparisons are not to the genocide as you claim all the time, but to the exodus during the genocide. And the ''obscure academic'' belongs to a well-know think tank. His assesment has been attributed and quoted properly per Wiki procedure. You should have maybe read the source more carefully before bringing it and inserting it in the article yourself, if you don't like the part about mixed rebel messages that much. ] (]) 08:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I don't see any discussion about this at ]. That's where this conversation should begin, not at ]. You need to develop a consensus about these edits since it is clearly a contentious subject. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Liz, I have learnt from past interactions that this editor EkoGraf has no legitimate interest in forming a consensus. You can see from their summaries on the article in question and from the argumentative responses here (as well as the personal attack linked above) that this user has not modified their behavior or sought to assume good faith in the slightest. All they seem intrested in is inserting an endless series of ] sentences that misuse the references provided to back up a specific POV. I still believe admin intervention is the only solution. At this point I am willing to let the Armenian genocide sentence stand in its current form. It is not fleshed out or specific, yet EkoGraf seems determined in retarding the article in this particular respect, so at least the previous extreme and unreferenced statement regarding the "continuation of the genocide" has been removed. If you (or another admin) could edit the ] qoute EkoGraf is now attempting to stuff into the lede—that doesn't specially mention any factions, or Latakia, is talking about the Syrian Opposition in the broadest sense, '''and is not even talking about online progranda which is the subject of the sentence/paragraph'''—then this issue could be resolved and I can (happily!) go about other things. | |||
| :: You need to sign your comments, using four tildes <nowiki>, ~~~~, </nowiki> so it is clear who is commenting here. It's impossible to follow a conversation without knowing who is speaking. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No problem, FYI it was me the IP. ] (]) 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''EkoGraf has no legitimate interest in forming a consensus'' Aha, yeah right, my numerous attempts at changing the wording for consensus's sake in comparison to your full reverts, which can be seen in the edit summary's, is clear indication I have no interest in forming a consensus. And the quote you keep talking about constantly that you want removed is talking about the rebels different ways of treating the minorities, which is the topic of the paragraph. And for the last time, that previous wording that you find extreme was put there by some other editor weeks ago, not me. ] (]) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You reinserted that exact wording about the "continuation of the Armenian genocide" (after a 70 year hiatus?) several times. The problem with the "jihad" quote is that it isn't specific and it is broadly speaking about the conflict as a whole (I.e. context was an issue). However, as long as the involvement of Shi'ite militias and Assad regime internet disruption is mentioned '''in the same paragraph''', then it it will be ] and I will consider this matter closed. ] (]) 15:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It won't be in the same paragraph because it is not on the same subject. The source talks about the involvement of Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militiamen and even Iranian military advisers in the sense that they were there to bolster the Syrian military in a military sense. There is no talk about them being involved in any sectarian violence or even targeting the civilian population let alone the minorities, as you wrote in the article (totally unsourced). As for the internet thing, I'm not seeing a purpose for it to be in the article since it was going on even before the offensive and was not even a result of the offensive or even linked to it. But OK, I will let it stay in, but not in the same paragraph, because again it has nothing to do with the persecution of the minorities (subject of the paragraph). And I'm still waiting for an explanation of your removal of sourced information that the offensive has been stalled and has petered out. ] (]) 15:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The source mentions the targeting of Sunni neighborhoods. But that is not a concern really. However, the source makes clear that they are identified by sectarian insignia. And the subject of the paragraph is progadana and its relation to minorities. Have added a new source to balance the previous quote. Also the "petered out" language is not needed and not a vital part of the source. How about just presenting the facts.] (]) 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I support the action of editor because they are logical and are absolutely justified so I fully support his actions and I also participate in the editing of this article . But some anonymous editors try cause harm to this article. But the editor of EkoGraf just trying to eliminate the consequences of such actions and lead article in order. ] (]) 16:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks for the ] ]. Appreciate it buddy. ] (]) 16:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::''Also the "petered out" language is not needed and not a vital part of the source. How about just presenting the facts.'' That is a fact and a vital fact. A fact that clearly shows the offensive has ended/fizzled out. So do not remove sourced information. And contrary to your claim the source makes no mention that Hezbollah, Iraqis and Iranians targeted those areas, as you originaly wrote and obviously continue to claim. Per the source it is the regular security forces who are targeting those areas while hunting rebels, not cracking down on minorities. And their insignias have nothing to do with sectarian violence towards minorities, but rather to signify what religion the militiamen belong to and further to the point to distinguish them from the regular military units. ] (]) 17:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Why do they need insignia to indicate their religion? It likely has everything to do with sectarian violence, but it is easy to misread a source and yes it does say the army targeted Sunnis. Regardless, this insignia ponit is important and should be mentioned. The "petered out" claim is fine and not something to worry about. It would greatly help wrap this thing up if you assumed ]? ] (]) 02:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::''It likely has everything to do with sectarian violence'' In other words, its your personal opinion that it has to do with sectarian violence, and its not what is said in the source. ''yes it does say the army targeted Sunnis'' It actually says they targeted Sunni areas in pursuit of rebels, in other words, they weren't targeting Sunni's specifically. And I'm not understanding why you want it to read ''Iraqi militia "bearing Shi'ite insignia"'' instead of simply ''Shiite Iraqi militia''. I would think my rewording and rewriting of the text at every occasion in pursuit of compromise and to satisfy you has shown enough good faith. ] (]) 11:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin help at UTRS == | |||
| Some help reviewing blocks at ] would be appreciated. The appeals are piling up and I can't review all of the cases awaiting review (as the blocking admin, or having declined previous requests). The last reviewed appeal was by me 24 hours ago and there are 17 appeals outstanding. Mops at the ready! --]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Remind me where the list of appeals is located. I'm an admin, but I usually don't look ''for'' unblock requests. — ] ] 05:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{reply to|Ponyo}} I knocked 10 out. {{reply to|Arthur Rubin}} They are on UTRS .--v/r - ]] 06:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks {{U|TParis}}. There are still 6 appeals outstanding if anyone's game.--]<sup>]</sup> 15:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|:::}} And now all clear! {{U|TParis}} and {{U|Yunshui}}, your CU requests are complete. Cheers for the help everyone!--]<sup>]</sup> 21:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : I tried to apply for a UTRS account about a month ago ... it never took <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{U|DangerousPanda}}, there was a glitch with the captcha which has now been fixed. Please try again if you're still interested.--]<sup>]</sup> 16:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Someone with greater power than I ... == | |||
| {{archive top|1=And thus do 26,095 edits bite the dust. Talk about total drama! - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| While actionning ] as "delete", I obtained the following error: | |||
| : '''Deletion error on List of Total Drama characters. Error info:bigdelete : You can't delete this page because it has more than 5,000 revisions''' | |||
| Could someone with Hulk-smash powers deal with the actual deletion. I'm still "happy" to be called the deleting admin in case of DRV <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've ] to action this. {{ping|DangerousPanda}}, what's your interface language set to – does it happen to be British English or something? ] that you get when using the US English setting contains a link to the steward requests page. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 03:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], would it be possible to redirect that page to Total Drama instead of deleting it? With 26k revisions, I am uncomfortable deleting it, since such pages should only be deleted in exceptional circumstances. If nothing else will work, I'll try to get in touch with a system administrator to OK the deletion. ]<small> (])</small> 03:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Additionally, the problem with the interface message could be corrected by updating ] and ] (the two variants of English recognized by the software) to the same text as ]. ]<small> (])</small> 03:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Ajraddatz}} The consensus ''was'' to delete, not redirect. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 08:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Ajraddatz}} Thanks, I've done this to both the variants of the MediaWiki:Delete-toobig message. ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 08:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand that consensus was to delete, however, the internal policy regarding deletion of large pages suggests that there must be some important need for them to be deleted - I see no such need here, thus why I'd like to examine other options. However, the role of stewards is to implement community consensus, so if no alternatives are viable for this case then I'll continue with the deletion. ]<small> (])</small> 19:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why should the fact that it's been edited (it seems terribly) for such a long time require any additional discussion? AFD decided delete. Now all is needed is someone who can delete the page and hopefully not take down the site in the process.—] (]) 20:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Note: After (finally) getting a hold of one of the devs, looks like a shell delete is the best way to handle this. The page will be deleted shortly. ]<small> (])</small> 21:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::And deleted by Hoo man. Sorry for the delay guys. ]<small> (])</small> 21:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| ] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == AIV and Abuse Filter == | |||
| :It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law. | |||
| ::::* To who would this be a threat? | |||
| ::::* Which law? | |||
| ::::* In which country? | |||
| ::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wow, I am glad you asked. | |||
| ::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store. | |||
| ::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down. | |||
| ::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong. | |||
| ::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| What is the deal with the abuse filter being tripped and reported on ]? What do we do? It's being caught, so there is really no action to take, particularly I am getting at filter 608, blocked or banned user. Just review and delete, or what? I haven't really seen any instructions for that.-]<sup>(]) </sup> 20:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == IP repeatedly adding/removing trojan horse names == | |||
| * I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I was hesitant to even being this up, because the net effect to the article is pretty negligible, but there's an IP, {{u|182.73.252.2}}, repeatedly adding non-notable trojan horses to the list at ] and then removing them a short time later (less than an hour, and usually just a few minutes). For example, today: and 32 minutes later. | |||
| *:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room who ]? | |||
| *::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations? | |||
| *::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The only reason I decided to start a thread here is because it seems plausible that someone might do this thinking they're boosting search listings? Or introducing the ideas in the hope that someone else will notice and restore it? Strange. --— <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> | 20:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Who knows? Whatever his or her reasons, refusal to discuss them in response to your polite request may be ], but let's try again. --] <sup>]</sup> 12:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}. | |||
| == Martyrs infobox == | |||
| :* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]: | |||
| {{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}} | |||
| I just moved {{tld|Infobox martyrs}} to {{tld|Infobox martyr}} (and its doc page, likewise). It's actually for groups of martyrs, so I was in error. Please will someone revert both moves? Apologies for the inconvenience. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}} | |||
| :No worries, {{done}}. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}} | |||
| :* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Requested edits == | |||
| ::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged. | |||
| ] is badly backlogged (a request from 19 March is unanswered, for instance). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 18:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :We're backlogged everywhere. We need to start nominating people for RfA. We complain that RfA is broken and people hardly pass, but if we don't nominate folks then no one passed. We've only had 12 candidates pass this year, only 37 nominated. Find someone who patrols the autoconfirmed version of requested edits and nom them for adminship.--v/r - ]] 23:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{ab}} | |||
| :: Unfortunately, few specialists seem to pass RfAs. There are general expectations voters have that require substantial experience in content creation, fighting vandalism, AfD discussions, plus be an active editor for 2-4 years. I don't see more editors passing RfAs until there is a realization that Misplaced Pages needs more admins and the goal is acceptable not outstanding. It seems like there was a big push in 2006 for more admins and I've come across editors with 3-6 months experience being elevated to admin status. I'm not suggesting returning to that standard but maybe more active editors need to realize that the current situation, with more admins retiring, is not sustainable. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: (edit conflict) Is that a bolt-on of autoconfirmed? I would be very happy to help out if given addn tools but no way am I ready for the mop yet! My block record is clean and I do serious gnoming and generally help out and comment. ] (]) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fancy you show up Liz. When is your RfA? I do do noms. {{ec}} Irondome, I'd give you a review/possible nom too if you guys want. Even if you fail, everyone fails once (I did).--v/r - ]] 23:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Well, I wasn't fishing for a nomination! Although I created my first account in 2007, I think I'd need a year with this account and the creation of several articles. Right now, I'm focused on categories and gnomish work. But thanks, that's flattering. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Liz would make it. ] (]) 23:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Liz, I'm not in the business of catching fish, or flattering people. I'm in the business of getting more active admins in the places that need admins to be active. It's a practical question, we all need to find good candidates. Hell, we need to find marginal to acceptable candidates to even try even if they fail once or twice; not that you are marginal. I don't care if I like the candidate personally, I don't care if they have a political POV that differs than mine, or religious differences. I only care about people who are active, level headed, and are committed to areas needing admins. Do you want a nom? Irondome?--v/r - ]] 00:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Gotcha. It's not the right time for me but I'll let you know in the future. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{U|Liz}}, if you have created articles with a previous account, couldn't you point that out? —] (]) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: It's all on my user page. But I did most of my previous editing as an IP, two of which I've noted. But it was intermittent editing, not like the daily editing I do today. But, yes, I assume the previous accounts would be brought up for any editor in an RfA. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::{{U|TParis}}, encouraged by your comments I may have found another candidate (] —] (]) 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == An inappropriate template being added to many pages == | |||
| ::*Part of the backlog has likely been caused by the serious weeding at AfC over the past year - Tens of thousands of deletion requests, hundred of history merges, etc. I'm sure that sucked up a huge amount of admin time, but should be easing off now. —] (]) 00:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked from mainspace. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Oct13}} | |||
| A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin has absconded halfway through an SPI investigation == | |||
| :Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I filed an SPI case at ] last week. ] started an IP check which has been running for almost a week. He has hardly edited since so I at his talk page a couple of days ago for him to finish the check so the case can progress but there hasn't been a response. Since I filed the case, the editor I filed against is already on to his second block and a lot more behavioral evidence has come to light in the meantime. The problem is I need the IP check either completed or canceled so the case can continue. I understand if no-one wants to get bogged down in an SPI, but if someone could just get the IP check wrapped up I would be much obliged. ] (]) 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *SPI is backed up, CU in particular. Since the editor in question is already blocked, it tends to get the lowest priority. Once a CU starts a check, I'm pretty sure that none of the admin or clerks can do much of anything, only another CU can conclude that portion of the investigation by checking or declining to check. There also exists the possibility that another CU has already noticed it, but thinks that since the editor is blocked for edit warring and was a sock, he will come back, so is just monitoring. Perhaps a CU will see this and revisit it. ] | ] | ] 00:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Quite honestly, the problem is that an answer was given, and then a lot of pressure was put on the checkuser because people didn't believe the answer. Standard practice is to block accounts based on their behaviour; if they are doing something blockable, they should be blocked for that behaviour. I've completed the check, the accounts are unrelated, and the SPI can close now. ] (]) 01:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Thanks for the heavy lifting, <s>I will look at it for close.</s> ] | ] | ] 01:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for completing the IP check guys. @] FWIW I didn't actually request or expect a second IP check since I wouldn't have expected the result to be different (IPs can change for any number of reasons i.e. posting from a place of work/college, coming home from college, changing your ISP etc) and I actually agree with you that there should be behavioral evidence against a suspect before they are blocked. ] (]) 15:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— ] ] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey admins == | |||
| ::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction == | |||
| Is {{IP|172.56.10.214}} Kumioko? We had some of his disruption in gun-related articles, and I think this is a continuation thereof. And if it's not him, it's some other troll attempting to disrupt a couple of discussions; dropping a warning with some chit-chat on ]. Anyway, if there's an expert of some sort--whether a CU or a Kumioko expert--please have a look. ] (]) 02:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Check the edit filter log. The "banned user" filter had been triggered multiple times... ] (]) 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction. | |||
| ::So, that's a yes? Please block, if so--I already filled my quota today. ] (]) 02:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::And this has nothing to do with Candleabracadabra, for sure? . Very similar edits, here-> ]. I am apologizing if I am wrong but it is strikingly similar edits, behaviour, style and voice. And remarkably similar misspellings, see this one of the IP, from the: | |||
| :::''23:30, 19 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+372) . .Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly (Please respect '''All''' edotors. Thanks) '' misspellings, . | |||
| :::As far as I know there are not many editors who spell like that ( except me, of course). <sup></sup> ] (]) 03:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No Haffy, your English is fine, and it's not Candle, as the filter log suggests, though the latter has taken the IP's case to heart on their talk page. That IP, of course, could have expected to be called out on their own English when they were trying to improve "non sentences". Thanks, ] (]) 04:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Now, I say that that IP it is User:Candleabracadabra. Same style, similar edits, behaviour, voice. {{U|Drmies}}, don't forget that '''if''' it is the way I say, (and it would be worth checking), Candl. can't use his/hers account right now, because you blocked that for some hours, so s/he must go IP. If I am wrong I will apologize to Candle, promise. But I don't think I am wrong. I really think that the "banned user" and the User:Candleabracadabra is same person. Same topics too, ] same talkpages (yours, {{U|Drmies}}), same style, same ... everything. ] (]) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*OK, who created that article, ] ? User:Candleabracadabra. | |||
| :::Who goes and votes and turns everything upside down on ] ? Banned IP. | |||
| :::*OK, who turns everything upside down on ] ? User:Candleabracadabra. See also ], same stuff. | |||
| :::Who goes and turns everything upside down on ] ? Banned IP. | |||
| :::*OK, who has been blocked for harassment, peronal attaks and uncivility by Drmies ? User:Candleabracadabra. | |||
| :::*OK, who has been blocked for harassment, peronal attaks and uncivility Banned IP. (this is I suppose, don't think it was copyvio - issue). | |||
| :::Who goes and turns everything upside down on ] ? Banned IP. | |||
| ::::OK, so, considering same edit style, same kind of expressions and so on... ] (]) 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Who says things that sounds like this style: ''This is evil censorship and bullying. I am right and they are wrong. You cannot allow lies and slander to appear on Misplaced Pages articles!''</td></tr> | |||
| ''This is censorship. This article is about a very important person, clearly 'x' (where x nominated the article for deletion) has never heard of them, doesn't like me and is pursuing a vendetta!'', ''This is pure vandalism – nobody can read the article without these sad and pathetic busybodies graffitiing their self-importance all over the place!''</td></tr> | |||
| As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br> | |||
| ::Both. ] (]) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Above citations are from the ] - not what these editors actually ''said'', but it is in the same style, if you got me. | |||
| ::*Now let's see a '''citation User:Candleabracadabra''': ''So you want to rein in the incivility? Go for it Drmies. But don't get mad at me for telling the truth. When you guys create a mess and involve yourself in it and muck it up, and you get stuck doing mopping I don't break a sweat. Cry me a river. I don't create articles in bad faith EVER and I don't edit in bad faith EVER and I try to keep a sense of humor about all the attacks I face, but I don't like it. So if I hurt your feelings, good. You deserve it. Show your fellow lowly editors a little respect in the future and don't act like such arrogant wp:dicks.'' | |||
| I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Now let's see a '''citation Banned user''': ''have made several other edits that have nothing to do with this. Quit trying to win by attempted mischaracterizations. It is uncivil. Single purpose accounts only cover one subject and besides defending against your ludicris accusation I have made only one comment about this. Please read WP:SPA for clarification. Thanks and please find a better avenue than insulting editors intentions and mischarterizing their contributions.'' | |||
| ] (]) |
:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : I strongly think this is a very good case for ]. I would probably fill in if I only knew how. ] (]) 05:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::* As {{U|Tarc}} has also noticed. And {{U|Viriditas}} clearly helds this user for disruptive too. ] (]) 09:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on. | |||
| :::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion. | |||
| :::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block. | |||
| :::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back. | |||
| :::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] backlog doin' great == | |||
| ==Disruptive Nature== | |||
| I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along. | |||
| I feel this user https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Muon is making disturbing, unfounded and covert allegations. I request the administratory board to have a look on this issue. This is a serious problem. Some two are three men trying to take control of Public contents are totally unfair. I feel a strong need to give people a fair chance of reading a good and clean content. Also he tried to change the edits which were totally in accordance with wikipedia editing norms. I fully abide by wikipedia norms and regulations. Thank You. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|skandasol}} To go from to you reporting the user to this noticeboard in the space of eight minutes, ] must have done something pretty catastrophic. Considering they didn't edit during that time, please can you tell us exactly what allegations Muon made and which edits were disruptive? ''']''''']'' 10:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I have reversed ] by Skandasol because it added a comment with what appears to be a signature of ]. @Skandasol: Please see ] for information about talk pages. On the last line of your comment, add a space then four tilde characters ("<code><nowiki> ~~~~</nowiki></code>") for your signature. Please add your comment again, with a signature. ] (]) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Call for mentors == | |||
| ::My edit history is available. Please have a look and do notify me what those disturbing, unfounded and covert allegations were. I have not attacked anyone personally and will never do so. I have reverted the edit that I believed was objectionable. This was my . ]] 13:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ] ] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all. | |||
| :I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| He said the following 'You are adding sex related statements to an article about Hindu deity'. His statement indicates an action which i did not purport to do and at the same time it did hurt me lot. I kindly request the Administrators to take back his words. My point is the word with reference to the context, the word 'enticed' clearly expresses a state where a person gets sexually induced. Again the concept of Procreation is objectionable. We are talking about Mythology(it may or may not be true) the point of adding reality goes astray. Keeping this in mind i edited the content to an acceptable level. Also I ask the administrators to revert his edit. I feel the act and statement of him shows high-handedness. I feel hurt and treated unfairly. I sincerely hope I am done with an explanation. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| :] If this is so sensitive a subject to you, you should seriously not be editing Misplaced Pages. Your edits can only be justified by citing an independent ] that ] the information you want to add, and supports your reasons for doing so. They can't be justified because you find "the concept of procreation to be objectionable". I'm sorry if that sounds insensitive, but we need to edit from a ] in our articles. -- ''']'''] 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal == | |||
| == Backlogged move request dealing with ] == | |||
| I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]: | |||
| The discussion at ] is 12 days old, and the arguments are going rather circular. The main point under discussion is whether ] is controlling for an album, or if ] can overrule it. Could an admin take a look at the discussion? Thanks, '''''D''''']]|<sup>]</sup> 15:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| (keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] ban appeal == | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| By motion, the Arbitration Committee has resolved that: | |||
| * '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation == | |||
| {{quotation|The site ban of {{user|GoodDay}} has been suspended subject to the following terms:<p> | |||
| For the period of one year after unblock, if GoodDay violates any user conduct policies at any time, any uninvolved administrator may restore the ban. Furthermore, if GoodDay is given any legitimate block by an administrator during the period, the ban will be restored.}} | |||
| There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 10:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : ] | |||
| == Deleted contributions request == | |||
| == User:DeltaQuadBot (looks for inappropriate new usernames) is dead again == | |||
| {{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * ] (looks for inappropriate new usernames) is dead again, since 15:10, 17 March 2014. See ]. It should list its findings in ]. ] (]) 15:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User: Alexzr88 == | |||
| ::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] == | |||
| User: Alesxzr88, who cites irrelevant sources in articles of history (books of non-historian writers), referred to me as "fanatic" . Could someone please make him stop treating me like that?--] (]) 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==User:Tutelary== | |||
| :Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This user ] is idiotically showing up her nature. She's deleting a page showing fake sites. Please look up this user & take a strict action against her | |||
| ] (]) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Please provide some links, or ] if possible. All I see are edits removing messes you've made, including introducing copyright infringements, which (let me remind you) make you liable to be sued or prosecuted in real-world courts. ] (]) 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:27, 8 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- Refining the administrator elections process
- AI-generated images depicting living people
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
| 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
| 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
| Other links | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 23 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 10 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 41 | 0 | 41 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 14 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 30 sockpuppet investigations
- 1 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 4 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 6 requests for RD1 redaction
- 62 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 16 requested closures
- 29 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 11 Copyright problems
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:
I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.
However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:
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)
Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft
I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?
Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace
...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)- I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?
Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)- Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to archive all threads in Talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. Yaris678 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article
VENUE CORRECTED Now at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra, I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - Herodyswaroop (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- You should report this at WP:COIN. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Unclear policy
Asked and answered. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If an RfC about policy -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists.
For disclosure this is about this RFC on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and this follow-up, about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how absolutely wild it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, which is something existing policy actually tells you, explicitly, to do!, and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are.
I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc.
- This isn't just my opinion, it's Misplaced Pages policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of WP:5P (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously so important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (which is also policy). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time.
- There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. Liz 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? GiantSnowman 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. —Compassionate727 19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? GiantSnowman 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you should move this complaint to WP:ANI. You will get better response there. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think Liz's comments are spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- "More" response is not always a better response. And I think we addressed Gnomingstuff's question, as much as I understood what they were asking about. It was pretty vague. Liz 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think Liz's comments are spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Continued subject of a sockpuppet investigation, and request for neutral third party intervention
I am posting this here because I need advice. A couple of weeks ago I was involved in an edit dispute on a contentious topic page, I noticed that an editor had made a serious of edits which seemed to me to be clear violations of NPOV. This was a very senior and experienced editor. I left a message on their talk page regarding it, I was not aggressive or unreasonable. A week later a sockpuppet investigation was initiated by that user into me, claiming that I have sockpuppet accounts, to accounts I have never heard of. They also claimed that I was being aggressive. Despite it initially being set to close by a checkuser, it was re-opened when 'new evidence' was given by the aforementioned user, making claims such as that my 'excessive use of commas' is similar to the other users, and other claims which I see are very much as 'looking for things to find'. Since, other editors have joined the investigation, these users all have edit histories which focus almost entirely on the aforementioned contentious topic area. I feel that all it will take is a rogue admin who also shares the POV (with regard to the contentious topic) and I will be unjustly blocked or somesuch. I am very anxious about this because I have put a lot of work into wikipedia since joining a few weeks ago, and I feel like these editors are targetting me. Is it reasonble of me to ask that there be some guarantee here that the admins, checkusers, and such, who oversee my investigation have a mostly unrelated to this contentious topic area editing interest? I will divulge the details if so, I just want to keep this as brief as possible while I broach this question. Many many thanks 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, Terrainman,
- I have a couple of thoughts. First, just chill. Many editors are accused of being sockpuppets, I know I was accused of being a sockpuppet when I first started editing. Your talk about a "rogue admin who shares a POV" is assuming bad faith, especially since the first checkuser who commented cleared you of being a sockpuppet.
- Yes, filing this SPI was probably unnecessary but Icewhiz has been a prolific sockmaster so some longtime editors working in certain subject areas are often trying to identify potential Icewhiz socks they might have created. I'm sure that this report is unnerving to you but it sounds like this event has sent you down a rabbithole that leads you to believe that there is some conspiracy against you. If I were you, I'd a) stop attacking the editor who filed the report, b) stop commenting on the SPI entirely and c) trust that our checkusers know what they are doing and if they find no evidence (which they haven't), they will freely state that there is no connection between editors.
- Also, in case you decide to stay as a regular editor, know that it is important how you "correct" other editors, especially ones that are much more experienced than you. This doesn't mean that they don't make mistakes but you called the other editor's edits "vandalism" and implied they had some sort of bias. Other editors criticized your comments to them. When other editors come to the defense of an editor being accused of misconduct, you should question whether or not your perception was correct and, if it wasn't, you should apologize. Consider that maybe you were being "unreasonable" and be more tactful and less accusatory when you bring up another editor's editing on their User talk page. This is just my 2 cents. Make that 25 cents. Liz 04:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi. First of all thank-you very much for your reply. I am and have been considerably stressed about this. Being accused so zealously of something which I am totally innocent of is a really nasty feeling. When I was referring to a 'rogue admin', to clarify I mean hypothetically, I am worried about this happening; there is no admin I have in mind. I definitely have not assumed good faith of the editor who initiated the investigation, since it seems so obvious to me that this is a targeted act. I understand how that might sound unreasonable, but it is how they have worded things, being so sure of themselves that I am guilty, and how they have drawn these absurd points of evidence and stated them as if they are damning. I'm sorry but I can't help but be a little emotional about it, my gut tells me that it is targeted so I did not assume good faith. I will stop commenting on the SPI, and take a big step back. I have said all that I wanted to say now anyway. I trust the checkusers, its just the 'new evidence' that really irked me, and I felt that I needed to reach out to someone about it, especially since most of the other editors who have commented on the SPI have the editing history I mentioned - but this is the point which I, as you mention, should in particular hold back on as it is accusative to the editors. Again, I will take a big step back and let the checkusers handle it. Thank-you again for taking the time to reply 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Humans sharing accounts with machines
My apologies, as I'm certain this has already been addressed and I've neglected to keep-up with the latest.
If a human ("Editor ABC") is writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by process of cognition, but is also writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by an LLM (as opposed to merely machine-translating thoughts which originated in their own mind), are we inclined to view this as a violation of our WP:SHAREDACCOUNT policy in that both the human and the LLM are contributing using the same account? Or is the dependence of the LLM on the human to actually post its output to the Talk page sufficient to overcome any concerns about sharing? Chetsford (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- There have been several discussions about LLMs, but I don't remember this specific issue being addressed. I would say, as I think about just about everything, that if the editor is upfront and transparent about what they are doing then most things should be allowed, but that if the editor tries to hide things or is sneaky and underhand in any way they should be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I know there has been a lot of talk but I don't recall anything regarding what you specifically asked. If I understand you correctly anyways... If both talk page posts are coming from the same logged in user and is signed as such, I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between what I actually say versus what an LLM spits out as a response to a prompt generated by that same user. However, that user would be held accountable for both their direct statements, as well as those generated through a LLM, and there is no real excuse that "I didn't mean that" when they posted it, regardless of how the actual text/words were generated. I guess the other way LLM could be used is say to take someone else's post/reply and feed that into an LLM and ask the LLM to generate a response. But again, not sure how big of an issue that is, as long as they're both being attributed to the same person behind the post. They just cannot use some sort of shared account principle as a defense. TiggerJay (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd put it this way. If someone is just posting content randomly generated by LLMs, I don't think we need to worry about SHAREDACCOUNT to block them. If someone is asking a LLM to generate something and than posting the output, it's silly to claim that the LLM is somehow 'sharing' the account. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this essentially grant a form of personhood to AI models, something they don't quite deserve yet? I doubt that a dependence on the human to post output is going to be a constraint for much longer. Also, in practice I'm not sure it is going to be possible to distinguish between Editor ABC and augmented-human Editor ABC. I can't even do that with my own stuff where I've noticed that I conveniently forget that it was the GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet copilot that came up with a better solution than me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
43.249.196.179 (again)
See their previous thread here, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
- I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Personal attacks by User:Remsense
The OP needs to let go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was instructed to report this here.
The editor in question: Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Claiming a user "can't read": . Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
- Calling a user a "scoundrel": . Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
- Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: . Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY.
- Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation . Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH.
2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- @2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- (For the record, I will not be participating in any WP:DR process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- You were not instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- IP, just drop the stick. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you blocked per WP:BOOMERANG, as you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. Codename AD 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here.
What does that diff have to do with anything? My complaint at WP:AN/3 was about Remsense's 3RR violation. My complaint here is about their personal attacks. I was directed to report that here.
If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute.
For pursuing enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is that?
@Phil Bridger: You were not instructed to report this here.
Yes I was. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if".
And the antecedent of that "if" is satisfied, as the above diffs show.
@Codename AD: DROPTHESTICK
The last retort of someone who knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy.
you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs
Yes, I have. How many more examples of Remsense's misconduct do you need? Give a number. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
With this blatant administrator abuse and corruption, it's no wonder Misplaced Pages is perceived as a joke by the public nowadays. Circling the wagons to shield a user from rule enforcement and cover for each other's admin abuse.
Why do you have such a strong interest in protecting Remsense from Misplaced Pages's rules? Is Remsense part of your "clique"? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked. For the disruption and personal attacks above and at WP:ANEW, I have blocked 2001:569:7FEA:2900:0:0:0:0/64 for a month. Pinging Johnuniq: will blocking this /64 do it, John? Bishonen | tålk 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: My provider gives me /56 and leases of /48 are not unheard of at other providers. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't even given anyone a reason to like me that much, so this kind of result only makes sense if I'm demonstrably the duller thorn in the community's side. Remsense ‥ 论 04:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- If anything new turns up, let me or Bishonen know. I am closing this now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year to all editors on this project! Liz 00:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Misplaced Pages! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Happy New Year to the whole English Misplaced Pages community! Ahri Boy (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- The most I can muster, to all editors, is after 2024, I hope all of your 2025s are better than you expect them to be! Liz 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025
At their request, the CheckUser access of Ferret is removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks them for their service.
On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025
RM completion request
Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please carry out the moves at Talk:Minsk District. I was attempting to close it, but got rate-limited because of the sheer number of pages in question. JJPMaster (she/they) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- And done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
File:L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat, Complete.webm
Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, This is now in the public domain in France, but I can't move this file to Commons because the first version is hidden. Please help. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yann, I've deleted the hidden revision, you should be able to move it now. — Masem (t) 14:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
an obstacle to translation
This does not require administrator intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was going to translate the article 2022 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias into Persian. While translating, I noticed that the title of the article and some of its content about the Persian Misplaced Pages were not cited. I contacted the author (user:Ahri Boy)of the article but have not received a satisfactory answer yet. Please look into the matter. Arbabi second (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243
@Dreameditsbrooklyn and to a lesser extent @Aviationwikiflight have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as these diffs at me, this diff at AWF, and this diff at User:Awdqmb. Is this actionable? guninvalid (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety
I am stating a fact.
and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".
You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
this
you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
- Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
- But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:MOS says:
If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
- WP:AT, which follows MOS says:
Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
- The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?
Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:MOS says:
An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability
No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' asAccident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible
. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place.
... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries
– The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article statedAirliner crash
, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place.
Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ZLEA T\ 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. guninvalid (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Request removal of PMR/Rollback
Flags removed JJPMaster (she/they) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. Regards, Aafi 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material
This appears to be done. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After reverting multiple edits that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @FMSky posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: "Put your trash analyses in the appropriate section(s) and stop flooding the lead with citations.". 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, why haven't you done that? --FMSky (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article in question is a contentious topic x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?
How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see this edit from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user FederalElection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll add that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, wp:undue concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as 62.74.35.238 now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. WaggersTALK 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Appeal of topic ban from 2018
There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to Donald Trump due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is here. In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at WP:ITNC where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to Alex Shih who implemented the topic ban in the first place . Joseph2302 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more WP:AGF. RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse lifting TBAN per above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse removal of topic ban. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse removal of topic ban per Misplaced Pages:One last chance. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more WP:AGF. RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages
Given this, it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:
Evidence
1. Diff 1 – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.
2. Diff 2 – In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.
3. Diff 3 – In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.
4. Diff 4 - After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated Moliere Dimanche for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.
5. Diff 5 - The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to Dimanche v. Brown and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, Roe v. Wade was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since Dimanche v. Brown was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.
Spiralwidget (talk) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.
6. List affected articles: Moliere Dimanche, Dimanche v. Brown, etc.
Context
- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today. - I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.
I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.
NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in WP:Vandalism. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our policies and guidelines before resuming editing. Donald Albury 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
- I was reviewing articles on WP:AFC back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon Draft: Moe Dimanche, which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with WP:ARTIST, which was the main claim of notability).
- Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
- I then commented on User talk:NovembersHeartbeat because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark Draft:Moe Dimanche on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
- On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that Draft:Moe Dimanche had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have WP:COI concerns and I don't think he passes WP:GNG) and also nominate Dimanche v. Brown, which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
- In addition, I would like to question whether there is WP:COI going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in WP:SOCK... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? Spiralwidget (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? 74.254.224.67 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The exact text from the source is
The source says exactly what you just quoted. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."
- The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". Schazjmd (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. 74.254.224.67 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The exact text from the source is
- "Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? 74.254.224.67 (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of WP:OUCH going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. WaggersTALK 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing my pages" (emphasis added). @NovembersHeartbeat:, I would strongly advise that you read WP:OWN, WP:BRD, WP:VANDALISM, and WP:ANYONE. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to strike such remarks as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but may be to your own detriment. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. Buffs (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime
Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI EvergreenFir (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have been working on the article Fender Stratocaster with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. FlightTime took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December and reverted four edits, without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had a conversation about it, and they reverted themselves. At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.
However, today, they reverted 17 edits of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.
2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. PhilKnight (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean
without any explanation
as his edit summary clearly documents his reason asReverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR
. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: Talk:Fender Stratocaster or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at User talk:FlightTime and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. TiggerJay (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Emoji redirect
👌 - The Bushranger One ping only 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Was trying to create 👌 (film) as a redirect to Super (2010 Indian film); the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the Vitarka Mudrā aka the OK gesture. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Topic ban appeal
Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. DesertInfo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
- I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
- I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
- This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart
Looks like this is done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! GD234 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like Camden Stewart or Camden Music. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" GD234 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GD234: I have moved the article to draftspace at Draft:Camdenmusique. If you have a conflict of interest with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are interested in ensuring that the article is indexed on Google and you uploaded his professional headshot), you must declare it following these instructions. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at articles for creation. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback! GD234 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Andra Febrian report
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many edit wars. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's Editing policy) on many pages that good-intended edits have occurred on
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset.
I request that the user is warned.
HiLux duck — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking into this
Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Mr.Choppers warning request
- This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the WP:Civility rules because:
- calling me a "nuisance" because of own bias supporting others in edit wars that have nothing to do with the user. (WP:Civility) (WP:Civility (second violation this user has performed))
- responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war
- note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that
- also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims.
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, HiLux duck (talk) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
- Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan
Already closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of WP:GS/AA at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) § Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Cannot draftify page
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried to draftify Wuliangbao_Pagoda but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Remove PCR flag
Flag run down. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion."The Testifier" report
Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § "The Testifier" report – voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Problem with creating user talk page
CU blocked as sock by Spicy. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user BFDIisNOTnotable (talk · contribs) to warn them against edit warring with {{subst:uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This particular account was definitely created on this wiki. Graham87 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation
I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per WP:NLT. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with this addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
repost from archive:
The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.
Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Misplaced Pages:Edit war is mandatory
but Uwappa has done neither.
I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.
Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 )
- 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
- 13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
- 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
- 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.
- 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
- 14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
- 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
- 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
- 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
- (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
- 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
- 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa
- 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
- 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
- 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
- 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
- 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
---
- 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
- 14:17, 29 December 2024 Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Reposted above from archive, see User_talk:Uwappa#c-JMF-20250105190300-Uwappa-20250105161700
JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
- I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
- Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.
user:Liz What would you like me to do now? Uwappa (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- To who would this be a threat?
- Which law?
- In which country?
- Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
- It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
- The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
- Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could well be taken as a legal threat), and then immediately go back and revert the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
- Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
- Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read my reasons for being late to this party?
- Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
- Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
- Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
- Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it was. Meanwhile, you're still edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) - Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a chilling effect. When called on it you have continually Wikilawyered instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the sixth time.16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (Their edit note adds 3rd time in 24 hours: are they boasting of a 3RR vio? Zefr undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
.An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
— WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule - Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.
-
- From WP:EW;
Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring
. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:EW;
- To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
- In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was explictly a legal threat. Suggest revoking TPA. @Black Kite: - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
An inappropriate template being added to many pages
Blocked from mainspace. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Oct13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_6#Template:Mortal_sin_in_the_Catholic_Church. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've reverted the addition of the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The template as been deleted per WP:G4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see Template:Mortal Sins According To The Catholic Church) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from Oct13 on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. Tarlby 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a RADAR situation here. Beeblebrox 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. Seraphimblade 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction
User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. Misplaced Pages is not a social network. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I find that Ottawahitech (talk · contribs) has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.
As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.
Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. -Lemonaka 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This might be better at WP:AN. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their previous block seemed a little bit like WP:CIR block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. -Lemonaka 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lemonaka: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent IDHT behavior of this user continues on.
- I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
- Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
- Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
- And that's still all they want. They don't want to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, here is the ANI discussion that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --bonadea contributions talk 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.RFU backlog doin' great
I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.
That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to everyone who helped make this suck a little less. Beeblebrox 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Call for mentors
There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Growth Team features/Mentor list about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are assigned a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to all new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- asilvering (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. Nobody (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
- I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). JayCubby 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Kansascitt1225 ban appeal
I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:
(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
References
- https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- (mildly involved) Support. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation
There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Deleted contributions request
Done and dusted. Good work all. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was Thick Sand Motorcycling, which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called How-to/Motorcycling, but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is 62.200.132.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). JJPMaster (she/they) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: The import and merge are Done. Please delete the page now. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: I've deleted the page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: The import and merge are
- @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs didn't exist in their current form until 23 December 2004. This page was deleted about a month before that. —Cryptic 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.WP:NOTHERE behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from User: Astronomical17
User:Astronomical17's talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with Devstacks which is currently at WP:AfD and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my WP:NOTHERE allegation comes from this diff at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? guninvalid (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)