Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:57, 9 July 2006 view sourceTyrenius (talk | contribs)37,867 edits →I'm really getting fed up of death threats now...: UK Protection from Harassment Act 1997← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:00, 11 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,252 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
<references/>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
<div style="float:right;">Visual archive cue: ]</div>
|algo = old(7d)
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-4 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive49--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
|counter = 368
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
--><!--


----------------------------------------------------------
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
__TOC__
----------------------------------------------------------


--><noinclude>
== Tasks ==
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
<div style="padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 1em 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3e3; text-align: center;">
The following ''']''' require the attention of one or more editors.
<br>
''], ] and ]''
</div>


==Open tasks==
= General =
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
__TOC__
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
==Felicity4711 and smartquotes==
] has been or directed quotes, but, as far as I can see, is unilaterally imposing them, as in and . I don't know enough about the technicalities, but I think someone who does ought to check this out. ] 23:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
:Ugh, to me this is borderline vandalism, unilaterally imposing a style that is widely disagreed with on dozens of articles without discussion. It makes the source impossible to read. - ] 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
::I’m unsure whether it is my place to post my opinion here (as I am not an administrator); however, apart from the html v. unicode argument, what objection could anyone have to the use of ‘smart quotes’ over the use of " & '? It seems to me an entirely irrelevant issue (as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used). Personally, I am lukewarmly in favour of the use of ‘smart quotes’ - they are typographically correct, and somewhat more æsthetically pleasing - though I am not as zealously committed to the cause as ] is. If she wants to go around, doing the mammoth menial task of swapping " for “ & ” and ' for ‘ & ’ in the many myriad articles of Misplaced Pages, then good luck to her - it’s not a negative thing to do (although, I '''could''' think of better things to do with my time). It would be inappropriately authoritarian for Misplaced Pages to impose the exclusive use of one form over the other (particularly the less correct " & ' over ‘, “, ’ & ”); slight differences of style are to be expected in an encyclopedia with so many editors. Please, tolerate some inconsequential diversity of style, and allow ] her harmless pedantry. ] 03:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


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 ].}}
:::Thank you, Doremítzwr. I’ll be careful to use Unicode directed quotes from now on. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
:::I agree with Doremítzwr, especially this part: '''as long as the unicode, rather than the html versions are used'''. The &amp;ldquo; and &amp;#8221; nonsense has got to stop, but other than that I see no problem. —] 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
::::Unicode it is, then, from now on. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (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.
::::Yes, the unicode is fine, but the HTML stuff is rubbish. If she modifies any more articles in that way I'm going to exercise my right to harmless pedantry to make then readable again with the unicode. - ] 06:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


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.
:::::As long as the end result is still directed quotes, you will in fact have my gratitude for changing them to a more-agreed-upon standard while maintaining their directedness. In the meantime, I am also going back through all my contributions and changing the HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (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.
:::::Changed to unicode smart quotes or keyboard apostrophes and primes (I presume that you mean the former; however your meaning is rather ambiguous)? If you do the latter, she’ll probably just go back and revert your changes; however, if you coöperate and change them to the former, it may encourage her to do so as well, and agree to only use unicode smart quotes in future. Shall I send her a message on behalf of you all, asking her to do so? ] 14:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


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?
::::::Exactly, Doremítzwr. I am going back through all my contributions and changing the HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes. ]


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
:::Doremítzwr is only partially correct: typographer's quotation marks are correct in a ''printed'' document. Misplaced Pages is not a printed document. Typographer's quotes have absolutely no place in the content of Misplaced Pages articles which are not themselves about typography, and Misplaced Pages policy should be revised to make this fact explicit. -- ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and should therefore strive for the same professionalism as a printed encyclopedia. If Misplaced Pages outlaws directed quotes completely, I might as well not even bother having an account. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia is irrelevant. Typography is a matter of the '''medium''', not of the subject matter. Typographer's quotes are appropriate to '''printed matter''', regardless of the subject. They are ''inappropriate'' to HTML or XHTML documents delivered over the web, again regardless of the subject. (As with anything else, there are exceptions to both cases, but Misplaced Pages is not among them.) Every medium has its differences, and (as I would have hoped you would have learned by now) it is counterproductive to try and force the norms for one medium onto another. As for "not even bothering to have an account", that would be entirely your decision. I am the last person who would try to convince ''anyone'' to spend their time editing Misplaced Pages. -- ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::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 ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Her work is going to be changed, as has already happened with . - ] 15:59, 24 June 2006 (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)
::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
:I’ll take that as a yes. ] 18:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
For reference, I have posted showing how the quotes added by ] to the article ] appear on the latest version of Internet Explorer for the Macintosh when the user is logged in in Japanese. The quotes are double width because IE renders them in a two-byte Japanese font. I suspect that similar problems may occur in many Chinese, Korean, and other non-English computer systems. ] 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
:] 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)
:I don’t mind if my work is changed from HTML directed quotes to Unicode directed quotes. If the quotes are made undirected, I will change them back to directed, but this time in Unicode. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::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)
:::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Incivility at ] ==
:Does this happen with html smart quotes only or with unicode ones as well? Either way, it’s the final nail in the coffin for html ones. If this also happens with unicode smart quotes, then perhaps it is best that smart quotes in general are discouraged; I personally find an extra space where it shouldn’t be more obtrusive than primes used in place of quotation marks. However, if unicode smart quotes do '''not''' cause this phenomenon, then I reïterate that it should be a matter of personal choice. I don’t see the validity of Bblackmoor’s distinction betwixt a printed document and Misplaced Pages - both are read, and users (including me) often print articles. I think it best that Misplaced Pages does not legislate on this matter; it is not important enough, and to do so is simply creating another point of conflict. ] 20:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


@] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well said. ] 14:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't see any reason why they wouldn't render identically: it's like "&amp;amp;" vs "&amp;". <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>] 07:30Z</small></i></span>
:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 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)
::"I don't see the validity of Bblackmoor's distinction betwixt a printed document and Misplaced Pages..." Search Google for the phrase, "the web is not a magazine". -- ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I still don’t see your point. The only relevant stuff those twenty-eight websites mentioned were encoding problems, which we all agree are important. However, nothing I read convinced me that the web ought not to use directed quotation marks and apostrophes ''due to them being directed.'' Furthermore, the fact that twenty-eight websites all make the same point doesn’t sway me in the slightest; a thousand people all arguing the same bad point doesn’t make that point any more convincing than had it been advanced by but one person — that’s democracy, and I’m not a democrat. ] 11:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
I don't see what this discussion has to do with administrators. The discussion should be at ], though please bear in mind it has been discussed many times before. (], ], ]). ]] 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


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


== Topic ban appeal ==
I have indefintely blocked ] as a sockpuppet of blocked user ]. I have also extended ]'s block to 1 week for repeated 3RR and for using a sock. Rationale behind the sock:


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)
# Usernames.
# Edit pattern. I blocked Giovanni @ 16:22, June 29, 2006 for violating 3rr . At 16:25 Professor comes in and to Giovanni's preferred version .
# They edit similar articles in similar ways. ] , ]


: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)
Professor has indicated that he is not a sock and that he intends to mail admins about the issue . I'm bringing it here for full disclosure and review.
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
]<sub>(])</sub> 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've reviewed checkuser evidence in this matter and I do not believe that there is any sockpuppetry going on. The secondary evidence is also weak. I strongly urge an unblock and an apology. ] (]) 05:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Andra Febrian report ==
::Kelly, there is extremely strong linguistic evidence, combined with the fact the we know that Giovanni has a record of using puppets, and there is a long history of new users turning up, supporting Giovanni, reverting to his version, following him from one page to another, and using the same linguistic idiosyncrasies. I will e-mail you the linguistic evidence. Obviously, I do not want to make it available in public, as that will alert him to what he should avoid with future puppets. The admin who blocked was not aware of the linguistic evidence, at the time of blocking, though I have since e-mailed some of it (not all, as I was changing from one computer to another). Deskana and some other admins are also aware of it. I will also post a fuller statement here when I get time. I would urge that nobody consider unblocking without reviewing the evidence, which I am willing to e-mail to any administrator on request. When he first arrived at Misplaced Pages, he did not know about userchecks. Now that he does know (having been caught out after putting on a pretence of not knowing BelindaGong, while she was following him around, reverting aggressively to his version, taking advantage of our reluctance to report new users), he is unlikely to make that particular mistake again. By the way, Giovanni is claiming on his user page that I'm not a linguist, and don't have any degrees in lingsuitics yet. I'm also willing to e-mail evidence of my bachelor's and master's degrees and several diplomas in language studies and linguistics. ] ] 08:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
::AnnH is entirely correct that the linguistic evidence alone strongly indicates that these posts, as well as those of MikaM, Kecik, etc., propagate from one real-world user. Please do accept her offer of e-mailing the details. Combine this with the editing patterns, and the presumption of reasonable doubt is no longer tenable.] 08:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- caused many edit wars <br/>
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
I request that the user is warned.
] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
:::Giovanni also claims that he's never used sockpuppets before. To be frank I'm getting sick of cases like this. It's clear that at the very least Professor33 is a meatpuppet, due to certain things which I've observed which cannot be just random chance. I refer to the evidence that AnnH speaks of. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
<br/>
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Cannot draftify page ==
:::: I endorse this block as well. ←] <sup>]</sup> 09:45, 30 June 2006 (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 ==
::::: I also endorse this block. I stumbled across this incident via IRC and upon looking at both accounts contributions, it seems evident to me that both accounts are being controlled by the same person per the extremely similar writing styles and tone ]] 10:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== "The Testifier" report ==
::::::While we're at it, can we also indef block puppets ] and ], to whom all these lines of evidence equally apply? I have no problem with this user editting Misplaced Pages, so long as he sticks to one username.] 10:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
:I do ''not'' endorse this block. Kelly Martin has performed the checkuser and there is little solid evidence (read: something that you can prove) to that these two are related. Professor33 sent me a polite e-mail last night asking for help in this matter, and I agreed to look in to it. In addition to the checkuser showing negative results, the "linguistic evidence" that was used was sketchy at best. I am not convinced that these two are the same. I am going to look into this further, but I am heavily leaning towards unblocking this user. ] (]) 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::In the interest of full disclosure, here is the e-mail that I sent to Professor33 in response to the e-mail he sent me. I will not post the e-mail he sent me unless he gives me permission to do so. ] (]) 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


:I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::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 ==
Hello, Eugene,<br>
First off, I would like to note that a "CheckUser" has been performed on both your account and
Giovanni33's account. The results were not similar at all, so there is very little "solid" evidence
that you and Giovanni are one in the same. If you wish to provide further evidence of who you are,
such as some type of identification, feel free to email me and I will forward it as necessary.<br>
Secondly, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a devout Christian. That, however, does not
affect how I edit articles. I intentionally avoid most Christianity-related articles, and therefore
I can not say anything one way or the other in regards to any Christian-focused cliques, extreme or
otherwise.<br>
Reviewing your edits, I must say that you could have made better usage of the talk pages. When I say
"better usage", I am refering to the multiple reverts that have taken place. It appears that you
have been involved in a few edit wars which could be viewed as disruptive. Although you are probably
not connected to Giovanni, edit wars are bad. Try to seek a clear consensus before doing something
that a number of people disagree with. If this fails, I suggest that you seek mediation. Also, don't
be afraid to walk away from an article for a while. If you let things cool down a bit, you'll find
that people are easier to deal with.<br>
At this point, I will suggest that you are unblocked pending any concrete evidence of sockpuppetry.
My suggestion is to tread lightly when you are unblocked, and do not be afraid to ask for advice
and/or help if and when you find yourself in a dispute.<br>
If you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to e-mail me.<br>
Regards,
Alex Schenck
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Linuxbeak</code>


] from the past month (December 2024).
Hello, Linuxbeak. First of all, I wonder what you mean by saying that "the results were not similar at all". Have you ''seen'' the checkuser results? I thought only people with usercheck privileges saw checkuser results, and Kelly didn't say that they "weren't similar at all". She said she did "not believe that there is any sockpuppetry going on". She didn't say that they were in completely different areas. I never expected Giovanni to be caught a second time with a checkuser &mdash; he ''knows'' about it now. He didn't know at the time when he either registered a second account as BelindaGong or got his wife to join in order to get an extra three or more (often more, as we didn't want to report newcomers) reverts per day, and to follow him around, support him on talk pages, and vote on issues he was voting on. Do the checkuser results show that it's so far away that it couldn't be his work address, or another place that he drives to in the morning? The receent pattern has been that the last edit as Giovanni33 each morning is around the time that he would be leaving the house for work (according to his time zone), and then Professor33 logs on about an hour or two later, logs off around the time that he'd be finishing work, if he's in Giovanni's time zone, and doesn't edit at weekends. Giovanni then logs on as Giovanni33 around the time that he'd be getting home from work, and then edits in the evening and the night. Also, if his story that Freethinker99 is a separate person is true, we know that he's capable of getting a friend to join in order to revert to his version (which is still a violation of ]. When he accidentally signed while logged on as Freethinker, he claimed that he was over at his place, and was showing him how to use Misplaced Pages (i.e. showing Freethinker how to revert to Giovanni's version while Giovanni was blocked).


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
Secondly, what do you mean when you say, "The linguistic evidence that was used was sketchy at best"? The linguistic evidence has not been made public, and can't be, as it would alert Giovanni to idiosyncrasies that he should avoid in future, so how can you know that it's sketchy? I will e-mail you the evidence if you send me an e-mail requesting it &mdash; on condition, of course, that it is not made available to anyone other than an administrator. Please note that Giovanni has a history of puppetry, gross violations of 3RR (I mean REALLY gross violations, continuing defiantly after warnings &mdash; on one occasion making 11 reverts within 19 hours, despite warnings &mdash; not the kind of accidental fourth reverts that could happen to anyone), and gaming the system, taking advantage of our reluctance to report a newcomer; and that several new users have started reverting to his version and supporting him on talk pages straight after registering.
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
Please note, as well, that Giovanni publicly acknowledges his IP, and on any occasion when one of the suspected puppets made a not-logged-on edit and acknowledged it, it was '''''always''''' geographically close. Please see also ] and ]. Also, when he was blocked after the BelindaGong puppetry was revealed (they had put up an active pretence of not knowing each other while she was reverting to his version and following him to different pages, voting for what he wanted), {{User|Freethinker99}} arrived at the Christianity, talk page, said he was new but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni (first edit) and then reverted back to Giovanni's version (second edit). He was asked to review ], and said, "I have. Thanks." Giovanni was asked on his talk page (the only page he could edit) to state frankly whether or not he had any connection with any of the new users who were reverting to his version, and he denied it &mdash; but forgot that he was logged on as Freethinker99! He then changed the signature but we had already seen it.
:] ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
Various explanations were given &mdash; he was married to Belinda, and had not wanted to make that public. He was a friend of Freethinker, and was at his house, showing him how to use Misplaced Pages. When he denied having any connection to any of the editors about whom he had been asked, he had not seen Freethinker's name, which had been added to the original question later, but had been on his talk page for fifty minutes when he answered, and was '''''DIRECTLY''''' above the first words of his denial while he was typing.
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
It is extremely disturbing that Kecik has 40 reverts to Giovanni33 out of a total of 45 article edits, that his seventh edit was a vote for something Giovanni wanted at a page he'd be unlikely, as a new user, to find by chance (and he didn't have "e-mail this user" enable), and that he was here for nearly four months before he made his first edit to an article that Giovanni was not looking for support at (and then only after I had commented so many times on the pattern of his contributions) &mdash; and that nothing has been done about this. MikaM's contributions are similar &mdash; vote is his/her ''sixth'' edit, and as with Kecik, e-mail was not enabled, and it's unlikely that a brand new user, who was supporting Giovanni at ], would find that page just by chance.
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
And yes, I stand by the linguistic evidence linking Giovanni33 not just to Professor33 but also to eight other users. I strongly urge admins to e-mail me for the evidence before they consider unblocking. ] ] 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
* I brought the block here so that it could be reviewed. Personally, I believe he's a sock, and don't have access to checkuser. Kelly and Linux are respected admins, and if someone decides to reverse the block I'm not going to be upset. However, even if ] is unblocked, I do think that ]'s block should stay, and have said so to him in reply to him via email. This was his 5th unique 3RR block by 5 different admins. and perhaps a week will be a wakeup call. I considered a ], but the notices at the top gave me the indication that I should not do that given the evidence I had. If people are interested in the emails I have sent to both the Professor and Giovanni, I will happily post them, but they don't say anything I haven't said in public. ]<sub>(])</sub> 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
Well, '''I''' have seen the checkuser evidence, and it's certainly not inconsistent with the idea that they are sockpuppets. Moreover, I've seen the other evidence as well, and some of it is quite compelling. Please remember that checkuser is not a magic crystal ball; it can certainly be helpful in proving or disproving sockpuppetry, but ultimately decisions about sockpuppeting are made the old-fashioned way. As has been the case in the past with Giovanni33, there's either standard sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on here, and the evidence indicates to me that it's far more likely that it's plain old sockpuppetry. In my view the block is justified. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
</div>

Comparing the edits, it's clear to me that Professor33 is Giovanni33. The writing style, word choices, and habitual errors are all consistent. His timely arrival to support Giovanni just when he 'runs out' of reverts is icing on the cake. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'm certainly totally satisfied that they are sockpuppets, or perhaps meatpuppets. You can't really accuse me of sharing a Christian POV either. Although I attend a Catholic college and was born and raised a Catholic, I am most certainly an atheist. The linguistic evidence is far too compelling for it to '''not''' be a sockpuppetry case. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

::I've seen the linguistic similiarities, which can't be made public, and it seems clear that the Giovanni and Professor accounts are connected. IP evidence is only ever a part of the total evidence, because people can use different IP addresses for different accounts, but the linguistic evidence would be hard to explain away. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur that ] is a sockpuppet account of ]. This should be no surprise looking at the edits and the fact that Giovanni33 has used sockpuppet accounts in the past as in the case of ], ], ], ] and ]. Those most familiar with editing patterns of articles are certainly able to be the best judge of similarity of edits in terms of word choices, POV and sudden appearances in the "nick of time" to avoid a three revert rule violation. Is there an Rfc on this matter yet? And if not, why not?--] 17:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
:I endorse the block. It seems highly likely that ] is a sockpuppet account, or at the very least a meatpuppet, of ]. I see no need for an Rfc if the block is upheld. If not, then an Rfc would be strongly indicated. Checkuser does not help with all socks - consider HollowW aka Eternal Equinox, who edits from a variety of IPs. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that Giovanni33 has evaded his block. He acknowledges in of his talk page that his IP is {{User|64.121.40.153}}. That's a static IP. He acknowledged a recent post from that IP by logging on and replacing the signature as recently as 1 July. On 3 July, while blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry, he logged off as Giovanni33 (presumably the autoblock was cancelled at that stage), and made post in defence of Alienus. In case anyone doubts that it's Giovanni, compare it with , , and , where he comes to the defence of Alienus.

He was asked in ] if he had evaded his block. (Note that he had evaded it by using an IP on a project page.) He replied,

:Since im blocked and I'm not supposed to edit '''''any articles''''', I have not. Not even a single '''''article''''' even when I've run into several mistakes on a few of them. I've also not editing '''''under any other usernames''''', have not edited '''''any talk pages''''' except my own, despite what you think. It that clear enough?

It's not the first time that Giovanni has evaded a 3RR/Sockpuppetry block. See the contributions of {{User|Freethinker99}}, especially

As I'm involved in a content dispute with Giovanni33, I'll leave if for other admins to decide how this should be dealt with. ] ] 03:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:Since {{User|64.121.40.153}} is Gio's account, and since he used that IP to evade his block by making this edit , I have reset Giovanni33's 7-day block from that date, four days from today. -] 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:And I have blocked ] for the same period. -] 10:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::Giovanni33 has agreed to stay away from chritianity articles for the time being. As long as he does that I see no reason for further debate.] 14:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

==Hello I am experiancing Personal Attacks; I have asked th users to stop but there is persisistnace==

I am sorry. I do not want to look like I am spamming. I contacted an admin directly a while ago, but I guess he is not there and I contacted one today, but I also think he is not there. I just want this behaviour to stop.

They are making unfounded attaacks and accusations against me. As show here for example.]. The user who made this also did not sign which put together with an anoymous comment is not a good sign. I would like to know on what grounds ] and ] are making these claims. I have never made any negative comments on contributions. They continue to make these claims without any proof. ]

Here is more examples; Once, again can he please provide proof for these claims, especially the anti-Azari statments he keeps claiming I made???

The ] iscontinuing to make unfounded accusations and attacks against me. As shown here. I left him a polite warning, but noticed that this has been a discourse of behaviour and that he has been warned for uncivil behaviour in the past. I told him once on his talk page to '''be polite and keep all comments directed towards edits and that he has no right to make such accusations and additionally no grounds; I said I will let it pass as a warning and act in good faith and consider it an honest mistake on his part.''' But after looking at his talk page and contributions I have noticed he is making accusations to other editors about me and is still continuing to do so as you can see above. Any comment I make on a talk page is labelled POV and attacked right away? It is automatically lablled anti-Azari! I have no idea how saying every human being is equal and that we are all brothers and sisters is bad or anti-Azari? These comments are groundless, uncivil and simple attacks.

Can you please talk to him as an administrator. I do not appreciate this harassment. Like I have said, I am not here to fight, I am here to edit and to enjoy editing. User:Grandmaster continues to accused me of being anti-Azari when I myself am a Azari!? I do not know what makes him an authority to make such attacks or conclusions? He is basing some of his rationale on articles I have edited and continuing to claim I am another user, which is okay as long as it is civil, '''but it is not civil these wrong assertions are expressed through actually uncivil attacks.''' I would like him to stop making uncivil comments about me to other users and on article talk pages. Can you please get him to provide proof about the anti-Azari statments I have made! I am pretty sure I would be blocked if I made any anti-anything statments! It is easy to make such assertions, but can he provide proof before attacking my name on talk pages?

His claims does not make personal attacks legitmate or okay nor do they allow uncivil behaviour. He continues to make them and say I am anti-Azari! I do not appreciate this type of trolling and personal attacks. Regards ]

:Have you posted anything to the ] yet? ] 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

==Satchel Cohen hoaxer==
It looks like a ring of sockpuppets and hoax articles. List is being compiled on ]. It has been listed on ]. ] 09:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:Does anyone have a problem with a slightly creative application of G3 (pure vandalism) here? ] 15:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::Not I, especially since on AfD an avalanche of pure white snow is building against retention! - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
They're all starting to come up now on AfD with unanimous "delete", and, bearing in mind the background research into them, I don't think anyone is going to object. ] 16:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:It is done. A Wikiquote admin will need to do the needful as well. ] 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. Thanks. Saves wasting any more time. I've left a message on Wikiquote. Will the sockpuppet aspect be dealt with via ]? ] 17:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:You want them blocked? I don't mind doing that. ] 09:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for swift and effective action. ] 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

== I'm really getting fed up of death threats now... ==

While the person in question is probably just trolling for a reaction, I have a right to be f**king pissed off with the sheer amount of death threats I've been receiving lately for being an admin on this site. is the most recent of a line of threats I have received. I would like to make an official report of it because I don't believe that kind of thing should be allowed. However aside from going the police who probably won't do anything anyway what can I do to follow this through and report this troll for threatening me? -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:Yep, it's bullshit. The IP tracks to Chicago, Illinois. Here's the IP provider:--] 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:: This seem to be happening more and more is it not? From the 8 months or so I have been on wikipedia this kind of stuff seems to become more common. (including the "outing" business recently). Which really is too bad. But besides reporting it to the ISP and perhaps the police, I don't see any other way. ] ] 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Here's . -] (<small>] ]</small>) 22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

::: I've removed the threat from Francs2000's talk page. Now can a developer deletethe offensive revisions from the text?? --<tt>''']]''' </tt> 22:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

::::Actually, a developer isn't required for that anymore. There are 17 users with the ability to hide revisions like this and they are listed ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Can you not do that for the moment please? I have emailed my friendly local copper with an enquiry as to what they can do about it, and so the entyr would need to remain for the time being so that they can see it. Many thanks for your message though. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 23:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::: Why would you "destroy the evidence"? ]]<sup>(])</sup> 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::People don't like stuff like that hiding in their talk page history. I say oversight it... but I guess what I think doesn't really matter. --] (]) 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::I don't mind it lurking there, and if I really had an objection to it as an admin I can get rid of it easily enough without poking oversight people with a stick. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 23:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Apologies for deleting it, I thought I was doing right. Sorry. Well, Libellous revisions were removed from GWB by developers. --<tt>''']]''' </tt> 23:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::It's still there in the page history. -] (<small>] ]</small>) 23:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Sorry Francs2000, I thought you were requesting it to be oversighted. Sorry, I misread it. Don't apologise Sunholm, you've got nothing to apologise for. Reverting it was the right thing to do. --] (]) 23:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I am trying to help where I can. --<tt>''']]''' </tt> 23:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::My enquiry was ways that it could be reported, not "can someone please remove it"? It's an easy misunderstanding to make. -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to take up dedicated responsibilities of contacting the ISPs of people who threaten physical harm to an admin. How this would work I'm not sure, but a go-to place for admins who feel threatened is needed. --]] 01:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:Threatening death or rape is a felony in virtually all U.S. jurisdictions (and probably most other countries). This psychopath is hopefully only a slight physical threat to any Wikipedians but he is likely a dangerous presence in his local community. I doubt his antisocial behavior is or will always be confined to Misplaced Pages. Even if he never acts on threats, this behavior is chilling to people when made by someone locally -- that's why the law treats even threats of this sort as serious crimes. He should be reported and I'd be happy to do so. Does ] still apply in this sort of case? I hope not. --] 01:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

::I don't think anyone's going to block you under ] for reporting a death threat to the police. In fact it could be a crime to do so as it would be obstructing justice. However, it may be time for wiki to set up a dedicated service for automatic reporting of such things. There's no reason why they should be tolerated. ] 01:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:There is already ISP reporting via ], no reason this couldn't be done there as well. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 07:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If the police acted in the episode that troubled Phil Sandifer I would think they would respond when direct threats as these are made. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>] 08:29Z</small></i></span>

:Yeah, hand the offending revisions, the IP adress and a Whois trace of the IP and the timestamp of the edits to the apropriate law enforcement agency and charge him with death treats. That should be enough for the police to get a warrant to get his identity from his ISP. No reason to write it off as trolling, even if it is just hot air (wich is likely) it's not something that should be tolerated, and a visit from the cops should make him think twise about doing it again at the very least. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 12:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so that you all know, I reported this incident to the police in the UK yesterday. It will now be investigated under the crime of threatening with the intention of creating fear (or something like that). -- ]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:I hope the threats against you stop. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>] 08:29Z</small></i></span>

Another today against ], this time by ]; that IP address is registered to a US radio station. (I suspect it may be another zombie PC being used by the same guy that threatened RHaworth and ] a few days ago.--] 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

<br>
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-
-- (a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
-- (b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.<br>
''and a more serious crime:''<br>
4. - (1) A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.
--- (2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.

] 03:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==

:''Please note that part of this is what I put this on on ]'s userpage, I'm copying it to here as I want some opinions. If that's alright with you all, that is.

So here's the story. This guy likes to remove everything from his userpage, and that includes warnings. I stumbled into it from RC, I think, and put the warnings back. We got into an edit war, as he didn't want them there. I tried to tell he they have to stay, but he didn't listen. After going back and forth, he told me that reverting the removal of warnings from his userpage put me in violation of the 3RR rule, and then said editing without a username . Ha. Anyway, ] somehow got involved and blocked him for 24 hours. After those 24 hours passed, he removed the warnings yet again, for around the seventh time. I had obviously removed his 'warnings' from my page, and he said that that meant he could remove others from his page. Confused? It gets worse. Going back through his talk page history, I found he's been warned for vandalising, personal attacks, and blanking sections of pages. I told him that, and he responded by saying that the only person who warned him . He was, for a while. But he's not now.

But wait! The plot thickens. This is what I said to Titoxd last night. It is addressed to him and explains my confusion.

After he was given all those warnings and blocked he I said he should . So Irishguy . ER then responded to me by saying everything on his page . I told him . He claimed that and that his block was for deleting things in unimportanat articles. He proceeded to before again. So he . I once more that he shouldn't remove warnings. So he about how he can delete whatever he wants, then . So what did he do? . He went on to . Irishguy , and ER promptly . Kungfuadam, aparently in RC, . ER wrote himself a . I was upset he would consider my a vandal and thought because I removed his warnings he could remove all the others. So I and have not yet recieved a response. I'm at a loss here. Since you were involved (and just so happen to be an admin) could you please help out? Thank you. <b>] <small><sup> ]</sup></small></b> <font color="blue"> Monday, July 3, 2006, 22:38 (]) </font>

That was yesterday. Today, I , and told him that if he didn't stop, I'd come here. Not surprisingly, he and proceeded to say he's going to change his IP and start a new account. So far as I know resetting your router won't change your IP... Anyway, what do you all think? This is a basic summary of what happened; I'd flip through his contributions and talk page history to see all the warnings he removed and people he yelled at.

Man that took a long time to type.

<b>] <small><sup> ]</sup></small></b> <font color="blue"> Tuesday, July 4, 2006, 07:04 (]) </font>

:I agree the warnings should not be removed (they could be archived after a while). Resetting the router ''would'' get a new IP if the ISP uses dynamic IP, which, for example, most DSL and dial-up providers in the US do. If he is on good behavior in his new account and stops using the old one (and thus avoids sock puppetry) then it would be okay for him to "start over" without the bad history. Hey, you stand for rights for anons, he could stand for "right to start a new account". :) <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>] 08:21Z</small></i></span>

::Can do. <b>] <small><sup> ]</sup></small></b> <font color="blue"> Tuesday, July 4, 2006, 17:54 (]) </font>

:::Well, except for this, which he added to his talk page a while ago, removing the warnings ''again''.

::'':::::Yep, here I am with a new IP already...(see edits). No wonder I had so much difficulty talking with 69.145.123.171. The guy does not know what he is talking about. Him and Irish Guy are complete retards... with the continued reverts of the talk page. To what end? To what benefit? Do people think about what they are doing or saying before they do or say it? I can only presume that these are the people who do it the way they are told to do it. The ones that can't think for themselves. I guess I have to give up my nice login and go for something a little more anonymous.... ] 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)''

::::...Also, here's his , where he removes warnings and flames Irishguy. I'd put the warning back in, but I'm getting sick of this. I think an admin really needs to be involved. :( --] 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:::::And under his new IP, there's a , , which was then , followed by , and finally, his . --] 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

::::::Okay, I'm on my knees begging for help here. I'm gonna lose it with him if we don't do something. He is using and IP to and I'm afraid I because I'm sick of this.

::::::::Okay, he ... . I . Go ahead, yell at me-I can't deal with sick people like this. >:( --] 20:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I have asked that assertions of fact be cited. This is in accord with wikipedia policy. Rather than address the policy and why it is being ignored, my request has been removed from the ] talk page for this article by user ]. Please address. ]


This is an established user who does not want to be identified and is just engaging in disruptive behavior by placing <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> all over the article because he/she does not support the assertion of evolution. Other editors have reverted this, but user failed to stop and discuss on talk page. &mdash;] 08:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

RJN is an established user who should know better than to ignore the most basic wikipedia policies all over the place in an attempt to hide blatant disregard for wikipedia policy regarding citation of facts and verifiability. ]

(Ahem). ]. ] 08:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You were disrupting the process of that article. You were reverted by numorous users, not just me. I am neutral to whatever is going on in this article because I have no past or present involvement in editing ]. Please do not drag me into this mess&mdash;I was only reverting your disruptive behavior. In addition, this user has been reverting way past the 3RR and has been changing IPs to circumvent the 3RR as well. &mdash;] 08:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


The person using the ] appears to be a creationist troll engaging in vandalism of the ] article. He/she seems unwilling to actually read the article itself, which actually deals with his/her objections, and is instead inserting nonsense into the article without engaging in proper dialogue on the talk page. It is apparent from their knowledge of Misplaced Pages that they are an existing user who is masking their identity in order to engage in said vandalism. ] 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)



== An idea ==
I'm bringing forth an idea brought up on ]. Should we have a separate page for bad usernames? A few times a day, we have people posting "xxxxxx is in violation of the username policy". The problem is that it's not really appropriate for AIV since it is not vandalism just to have a bad username. On the other hand, we probably need a board where non-admins can post usernames that possibly violate policy without having to clutter up AN or AN/I any more than we already do. It could be similar to AIV and WP:PAIN. Thoughts? --]<sup>]</sup> 08:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:I'm all for it; go ahead. ] 08:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::I, too, feel that this is a great idea. It would help me keep Misplaced Pages from being disrupted by various violators of ]. ] 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:Oppose. I see no reason why obvious ] violations shouldn't be posted on ]. They're even simpler than vandalism - with vandalism you have to check the contributions, whether the user has been warned, and then block, whereas with offensive usernames you just need to look at the name. The outcome is the same - quick check, then block. Where it's not sufficiently clear for an immediate block, the user can simply be asked politely to change his name and/or the account can be posted on ]. Further, those who create offensive usernames usually vandalise anyway, so ] is definitely where they belong.
:There's just no need to have a separate board, making our processes even more complicated, and resulting in slower response time (as not all admins are going to immediately watchlist the new page). I'll add a note to ] saying where apparent violations should be posted, as it seems to be lacking there. --]<sup>]</sup> 09:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::What we're seeing right now are not "offensive usernames" being posted. Instead, we're getting alot of email usernames listed. Usually when offensive usernames are posted, the person is a vandal. But these are not vandals that I am talking about. is what I am referring to. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::People who use their email for thier username should get a polite note. They do not need to be blocked at all. I don't see why we would need a page where we can list user's like this. The people who are adding them to AIV shouldn't be doing so, they should simply advice them of our policies on thier talk page. ] | ] 15:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::::And people who haven't ever contributed, as seems to be the case with Woohookitty's example, aren't usually worth bothering about unless it's likely that vandalism is forthcoming (i.e. deliberately offensive usernames and obvious sockpuppets- not email addresses). I would be more inclined to ask ] to stop trawling for email address user accounts and suggest RC patrol instead, rather than setting up yet another new process. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Fair point. Mind you, it would probably be worth having at least a short summary on the Register page of what constitutes an acceptable username. Especially as it seems using an email address is a common newbie error, and move the "your account should not contain" section ''above'' the fields where the account name is entered. With luck we could stop most of the problems at source. ] 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Makes sense. But going back to the original question: creating an extra page would just create an additional backwater to check. Just like ] isn't as well-known as AIV, and things there are usually handled by an admin on IRC. Non-vandalism usernames can be dealt with on the same manner than non-vandalism activity reports are. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 18:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I tend to agree with the general gist that we don't need something new for this. If someone has a "bad" username and is making bad faith edits, or they have such an awful username that it must have been chosen in bad faith, then I would consider either case to be vandalism so go ahead and list on ]. However, if someone is making good faith edits but has inadvertently picked a "bad" username, blocking them will simply alienate a possible good contributor. Just mention it on their talk page, or, if you can't get through to them, list it on ] Either way, we don't need something new. ] // ] 23:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: Agreed: we don't need something new, but we might need to stop the problems by tweaking the registration screen per my suggestion above. Who do we talk to? ] 12:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::::: No one, just edit ]. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 00:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

=={{vandal|The pen is mightier}}==
I want to apologize for this vandal; it was my live-in cousin, who apparently edits Misplaced Pages under another username (unknown to me) trying to get me blocked by collateral damage. I walked in on it, however, but not before he got blocked. I've undone the collateral-damage block (which is why I'm here; I wanted to mention that I was unblocking myself) and made sure that he spends the next month grounded from the internet. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 08:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

:ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE! DESYSOP! DESYSOP! Oh, wait, nevermind... <tt>;)</tt> <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

::Hey, at least it's not because somebody thought I was a Plautus Satire sock. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 08:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Now imagine if you lived with Willy on Wheels. :D ] <small>]</small> 09:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Well, there is ]... - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Apparently your cousin loves pokemon. Anyways, it's your cousin's fault, not yours.--] <sup>(])</sup> 11:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::I still think an immidiately desysop is in order. RIGHT NOW. RIGHT.... NOW. Whenever. --] (]) 11:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::And this Misplaced Pages moment has been brought to you by...the letter S. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== Aaron Walton ==

Please undelete this article, Aaron Walton.] 20:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:It was deleted per ], which states that non-notable people or music groups may be removed from Misplaced Pages. ] 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the deletion review log. ] 20:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:Then please wait for DRV to finish before posting here. Thanks ] 20:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:Alw4416 appears to be perverting the DRV with sockpuppets... nice. - ] 23:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

== Color/colour move without consensus ==

The article ] has a long history of being edited, without consensus and against Misplaced Pages's policy on national varieties of English, to substitute "colour". This just gets reverted, but today someone did a page move from color to colour. If I understand correctly, this cannot be reversed except by an administrator (because of the redirect created). However, someone did step in and did a copy/paste revert, unfortunately breaking the edit history. Anyway, we now have colour redirecting to color, but there is also an article http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Col%D0%BEr&redirect=no, and I really don't know what that is doing there. It would be good if an administrator could resolve this mess (with color being the main article, with all of its history). I have marked ] with an <nowiki>{{inuse}}</nowiki> tag in the hope that people won't add good faith edits in the mean time. If I could have fixed this, please let me know how! ] 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:By the way, to get to Col%D0%BEr, go to ] and follow the link that appears (apparently to talk:color again, but not), then click on Article. ] 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be fixed now. ] 23:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

==Personal attack/threat==
Alright, I don't particularly like reporting such crap, because I prefer talking things out with users, however...have a look at the last few anonymous comments on my ], and if anyone believes action needs to be taken, please let me know what would be most appropriate. Note that although the edits are from anon IP, this is registered Misplaced Pages user. Thanks. <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 23:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
:I've warned the IP concerned. If it re-occurs a short block would be appropriate. Unfortunately because this is an IP supplied by an ISP the user behind this will likely just come back on a different IP address if he's blocked. ] 00:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
::OK. If you look at the anon's last message, he linked to ] created by a registered user, for the sole purpose of attacking me (look at the image edit summary). I'm an admin, and I could delete the image, but I'd rather not use my privileges to affect a dispute in which I'm involved. Could somebody take care of it for me, either by deleting the image, or removing the reference to me, whichever you feel is most appropriate. <font color="#8b4513">]</font><font color="#ee8811">]</font> 00:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:::I have deleted the image and warned the uploader ]. He also redirects his User page and Talk page to ]. I have no idea if it is a mixup trying to change name to Lobo or an attempt to circumvent blocks and messages. ] 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

In my opinion this user is bound for trouble and being uncivil, along with a NPOV username. --] ] 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

*I have given him the UsernameBlock ] 02:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Should we link to possibly-illegal sites? ==

] currently links to , which supplies files that arguably (]) violate the ]. Do we have a policy about whether to provide such links? If not, do we need one? Is this the right place to ask? Interrogatively yours, ]<small>]</small> 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:In this specific case, the link does not improve the understanding of the subject. Rather, it provides an incoming link and free publicity to that site. ] applies. More generally, I'd say that there may be cases where one wants to link sites that could be illegal, for example an article about one of these sites. (], ]). 13:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
: Misplaced Pages generally operates under the laws of the United States, given that servers are hosted in Florida. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to try and interpret the DMCA, but in general, I don't find the link useful to the article. ] (]) 13:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
::Thanks for those helpful responses. I'll delete the link.
::]'s comment that "there may be cases where one wants to link sites that could be illegal, for example an article about one of these sites" strikes me as a pretty good guideline. Perhaps ] should say something about this?
::Thanks again, ]<small>]</small> 14:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I removed the other external link, which was to a site with instructions on how to crack Amiga games. They may be old, but it is still illegal. -- ] 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

==Highly inappropriate username==
Someone should probably ban this user indefinitely. ]. ] 14:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism of ] ==

Over the past weeks since the AfD success of ], the article's contents merged to ]. Since then, there was continuous vandalism targeted at that single passage. I've requested a semi-protect at ] but was denied due to "inadequate vandalism activity". However, that inadequacy was, in fact, an illusion. Consider the edit history of the article for the past week:

# (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 23:41:57 Deryck Chan (Talk | contribs) '''rv/v'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 18:14:59 203.218.124.219 (Talk) '''vandalism'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 15:01:32 Deryck Chan '''rv/v'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-05 00:10:16 219.77.113.65 '''vandalism'''
#... (subsequent edits in "clean state")
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-04 23:27:06 Deryck Chan '''rv/ previous vandalism'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-03 17:13:07 Tawkerbot2 '''rv/ further vandalism'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-07-03 17:13:01 82.110.221.72 '''further vandalism of another passage'''
#... (subsequent edits after the vandalism was done but not spotted)
# (cur) (last) 2006-06-27 22:43:33 222.167.114.37 '''vandalism'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-06-27 22:07:54 Misza13 '''rv/v'''
# (cur) (last) 2006-06-27 22:06:59 218.103.166.54 '''vandalism'''

If checked carefully, since 27 June, the article has 188 hours in vandalized state but only 6 hours in clean state. Apparently this is a terrible ratio, '''meaning that for a random visitor coming to the article at any time, he has only 3% of chance to see a non-vandalized article'''.

I admit my fault for not being able to sweep the vandalism in that 7 days (27 June to 4 July) due to my short wikibreak, but even after I've come back, the ratio is still terrible. Since 4 July, there are only 5 hours that the article is clean but 20 hours that it is in vandalism. It still accounts for a 80% ratio for a random visitor to se a vandalized passage.

The problem is severe and was underestimated by a lot of people. I want some admins to take note of this and help me watch out the vandalism, or do a semi-protection. Thanks in advance. --]] 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

: I see no reason why this is needed. This seems like a content dispute. The anonymous users are removing a section that really pertains to the principal, and not so much to the college. While the blanking without comment may be disruptive, it's by no means vandalism, and certainly is not worthy of semiprotection. ] (]) 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::Inclusion of that passage was agreed per ]. The anon editors also made no edit summary over all the edits (I suppose they're the same person or the same bunch of persons, because all the IPs come from Hong Kong ISPs). I'll seek negotiation when I revert next time. --]] 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

===Addendum on 9 Jul 2006===
The anon editors have refused to discuss despite a message on the talk page and two messages on edit summaries. Hereby I request an action on these (or this) disruptive anon editor(s). --]] 02:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

== Deleting libellous revisions ==

(Continued from ])

It appears that that more (allegedly) libellous material was added to ] on 1 July . An anonymous IP has again contacted me requesting this information be removed, so I'm forwarding that here. Cheers --] 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{user|MatthewFenton}} is insisting that the use of ] on this userbox violates our policy on fair use images in userspace. I'm of the opinion that this is bollocks. I've just reverted it for the third time, so I could do with some confirmation that I haven't gone completely mad. — ]] 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:You're correct. The image is copyrighted, but not every copyrighted image we use is a "fair use" image. In this case, the image is copyrighted by Wikimedia (because of the Misplaced Pages logo), and is used with permission. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with Mangojuice. Seems like a violation of ] by ]. ] 17:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:::On ], I raised the point that this shouldn't even be an issue. Only one editor supports getting rid of the image while at least 7 have supported keeping the image or questioned why it was deleted. Seems like consensus to me. And I agree with the above comments that this seems like a case of ].--] 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I personally like the ] that Herostratus has on his userbox. --] <sub>]</sub> 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

The case has closed.
* ], ], ], and ] are placed on probation and may be banned by any admin in case of disruption of highways related articles.
* Consensus encouraged
*Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another.
* JohnnyBGood and SPUI are warned to remain civil at all times.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- <small> ]</small> 16:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

==Suspected banned user sockpuppet==

I have strong suspicions that ] is a sockpuppet of ], who has been for ban evasion, POV editing, and various other violations of Misplaced Pages policy. My suspicions are based upon the fact that this week-old user has been that Hogeye was previously , making very similar changes. Further, this user has a surprising knowledge of the use of Misplaced Pages after only one week. Moreover, in recent days, Hogeye has been attempting to evade his ban by using anonymous proxies or by creating sockpuppet accounts.

I would greatly appreciate it if someone with the right tools could explore this in greater detail. Thanks. --] 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:] would be the right place to ask for a checkuser, ] for a non-checkuser sock investigation. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 08:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== Speedy deletions ==

FYI, ] has eleventy billion pages in it, some of which have been there for 3+ hours. ] 19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

== En masse addition of Military History WikiProject tags ==

{{userlinks|Grafikm fr}} has been using ] en masse to add a Military History WikiProject tag to dozens of article talk pages. I stopped him when he had just finished off on articles starting with numbers and had gotten to "A6". I wanted to get invite further discussion on whether this is a good idea outside of the Military History WikiProject; hence why I am bringing this up here. It is my opinion that an automated en masse addition of what is essentially a WikiProject advertisement to hundreds of article talk pages, chosen solely because they occupy a military-related category, isn't a good idea. Some previous discussion is located at ], but please keep new discussion here in this centralized location. --] 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:A few thoughts:
:* WikiProjects, despite being informal, are generally regarded as a basic and quite legitimate form of editor collaboration within Misplaced Pages. Further, the use of talk page templates to advertise WikiProjects is a long-standing practice.
:* The question of WikiProject scope is somewhat tangential to this. I cannot recall any limitation on the potential number of articles a WikiProject can deal with, and cannot fathom why such a restriction would be beneficial, in any case.
:* Aside from advertising the existence of the WikiProject to editors in the applicable subject areas (which is quite important in its own right, since projects that fail to recruit editors effectively tend to wither and die in short order), the tags also serve to introduce articles into the ] run under the guidance of the ] project.
:* The question of whether AWB is used seems rather unimportant, in my opinion. So long as the tagging itself is legitimate&mdash;and I'm not aware of any complaints in that regard&mdash;the use of a tool to make the admittedly monotonous task easier seems perfectly acceptable. ] 19:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

: To what Kirill said, I'll add a few things to explain:
: I've just went through ~300 articles of a military-related category. Only 61 were tagged and 2 ignored because they were not military-related. Meaning there was ~240 articles in this category that were '''''already tagged''''', through infinite pains, by hand, before that (and not by me). So it is a matter of being methodic: why ] was tagged and ] was not? What is the logic?
: I'm not a bot and I'm not applying tags blindly. If an article is really out of scope, I don't tag it.
: I do '''exactly''' the same job as was done before, only it goes 10 times faster. I '''really''' don't see what the problem is. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:Unlike most of the project tags kicking around, these ones are preset to allow for notes about quality rating, completeness, importances, etc. The project is pretty active, and seems to have a good deal of ]; it seems to me that this sort of thing is greatly helped by identifying and tagging articles for people to get to, since it allows category sorting, report generation, etc. (In many ways, it's probably better than slapping "This x-related article is a stub..." in the main namespace)
:(Yes, indiscriminate bot-adding is a bad idea, but it's hard to distinguish between indiscriminate and eyballing-and-approving each time. Were any of the marked pages inappropriate?)
:To my eyes, it's not "advertisment", it's infrastructure for the development of articles. Yes, it's not much use to start with, but people can't go and work on articles before someone's found them... It seems to be working fine; I say leave them to it. ] | ] | 20:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:: It was '''not''' bot-adding. I check the title carefully and if needed, open the article. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Apologies - I was caught by an edit-conflict and hadn't seen your reply. ] | ] | 20:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) The problem is there are so many different WikiProjects out that if all of them went around tagging related articles en masse, the average article's talk page would be flooded with half a dozen advertisements for various WikiProjects. Look at the huge list of WikiProjects ] and tell me it wouldn't be a bad thing if even 10% of them went around tagging all articles that were possibly related. It's just not a good idea. Quite literally it is spamming namespace 1. --] 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:Most of the WikiProjects on that list don't use tags. Most of them are also quite catatonic. Care to guess at the relationship between the two? ;-)
:(This aside from the fact that even double-tagging tends to be rare, and is becoming increasingly rare as smaller WikiProjects are being absorbed into larger ones. I don't believe I've ''ever'' seen a talk page with more than two WikiProject tags on it.) ] 20:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:The "spamming" problem from having five or six tags seems more due to the size and style of the templates. If this *does* become an issue, reformatting the project tags might prove a good idea... but this is useful infrastructure, and people do seem to be using it to build an encylopedia. So why make their lives harder for something that isn't a problem yet? ] | ] | 20:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

*The addition of the tags seems proper to me. This is a very active project and the scope of the project seems to be all pages that have a military topic. As such, then all these articles should probably be tagged as such. I do note, however, that looking into the far future, we may have problems with articles tagged by a dozen different wikiprojects. (E.g. As it stands today, a military war-ship made by a prominant manufacturer in Texas could conceivably be tagged by wikiprojects on Military, Ships and Texas. How many more wikiprojects might the same ship fall into next year or ten years from now?) Just the size of the cumulative talk page tags could theoretically be a problem. My opinion is that this hypothetical problem is not serious enough to attempt to solve ahead of time before it actually exists. Let's let these projects grow and tag articles and see what happens. ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
**"The scope of the project seems to be all pages that have a military topic" -- hrmm, yes, because they're defining their own scope. What happens when WikiProject United States comes through, with an acknowledged scope of the United States, and tries to tag hundreds of thousands of articles? I just don't see why it is necessary that every single article in the encyclopedia dealing with military history (we must have over 10K such articles) needs to have a tag advertising this WikiProject. --] 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*** For assessement purposes for instance. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
****How about they put the tag on once it's actually assessed, rather than putting up thousands of these tags that will doubtless remain blank (and useless) for months? --] 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*****They ''won't'' get assessed until somebody knows they exist (usually not the people with enough time to do mass-tagging, either). ] has been getting reduced in size quite consistently. ] 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
*** The United States WikiProject has a large number of child projects (many of which ''do'' tag things); it's likely that a most-specific-project tagging rule would be adopted by them should they desire to add tags. (In any case, creating current restrictions based on hypothetical problems seems somewhat questionable.) ] 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Might we think of a better infrastructure than having each WikiProject tag each article they have identified as being somewhat related to their topic area? This just doesn't scale well at all. That's the reason I brought this here ... for community review. I still don't think that having WikiProjects tag each article they're even tangentially related to provides enough benefits to outweigh the signal to noise decrease inherent in adding more colored boxes to the top of talk pages (once it gets past two, does anyone even read them?). I've thought this for a long while and haven't said anything, but when I ran across the massive addition of tags today, I felt like I had to say something. Hopefully we can come up with a better system. Why not have all of the article assessment ratings on a centralized page? Why should it all be scattered around on individual articles? WikiProjects are project-space stuff ... can't they do it in project space and project talk space rather than spreading their colored boxes all across ''article'' talk space? --] 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:It was tried. It really doesn't scale for any more than a few hundred articles. ] 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:Take a look at ] for instance to see that there '''are''' alredy such cases of pages having a lot of templates. And people live with it. Don't know where the problem is... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll point out that nobody has really offered an argument against the fact that advertising relevant WikiProjects—even in the absence of any other purpose for the tags—is a very useful thing (assuming that you like having active WikiProjects around, obviously). WikiProjects that fail to recruit editors die; there's simply no way around that fact. That's why the idea of talk-page tags was developed in the first place. ] 20:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on the subject - it wouldn't be a horrible idea to restrict the WikiProject tags to those articles where either (a) your project makes up a substantial portion of the editors of the article, (b) the article is obviously inextricably linked to your project (eg ] and ]), or (c) the article is an abandoned stub or short article relevant to your project that you intend to improve. There was one case a few weeks back with ] and ]. The issue more or less dropped because it was really just two of us arguing and the the project basically has such a broad definition of what "Charismatic Christianity" is that if you have ever met a Charismatic, you probably qualify ... it really wasn't worth it to me to continue debating the issue. Still, I would use this as an example of something that should NOT be tagged. Nobody from ] has contributed to the article itself. The link between the two is tenuous (] was once involved in a charismatic movement, therefore ] must be a charismatic church, even though they never self-identify as such). At any rate, this is more along the lines of a policy proposal than an administrative issue, but I would definitely suggest restricting tagging in some fashion. If nobody from your project is going to touch the thing, it doesn't need to be tagged as belonging to them. ] 20:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:I think that might be more of an issue with the particular WikiProject you mention having a somewhat unusual (or controversial?) scope. Is it your impression that it's a more widespread issue? ] 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

::That's a good question. Looking at the ], there aren't that many where inclusion is overly debatable. Most of the ones that could be contentious (for example ], if they wanted to be annoying, could tag every living thing saying, "well, it evolved didn't it") seem to exercise restraint. ] is one I imagine could get really annoying really fast if they did article tagging. So really, the answer is probably no, I don't see a widespread problem now ... but it could be and, as we have another incident here, some standards wouldn't be a bad thing. ] 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

: It seems to me that there are two opposing risks to allowing projects like MILHIST to tag the approximately 11,000 relevant pages they estimate exist. If this is permitted, there is a risk that some pages might eventually have several tags from several projects. If not, it's likely that more pages will be orphaned than if not. I tend to think that allowing an active project like MILHIST to tag thousands of pages will do more good than harm, although maybe there needs to be some procedure to remove tags from dead projects. A lot of projects are doing great work, and MILHIST is one of them. ] 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:: A way to remove dead projects in general might be helpful; the only way I've seen any disappear is by getting absorbed by a more active project. ] 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

:In case of WPMILHIST, we're in cases (b) or (c) in 99% of the articles. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think these wikiproject tags are almost always useless and almost always harmless; if it makes people happy to add them, so be it. But I would like to see the people who design the templates trying to make them as small as possible- no pictures, and directions to the project page rather than using the template to add lists to every talk page. ]] 21:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:The design of the template is different story - if a page is tagged, the initial template can be changed at will afterwards... :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
* Cyde, the assessments are centralized. You can try having a look at ]. However, a system where there isn't at least some sort of distributed rating will fail to work, as prior experience has showed the ] and ] projects. It is impossible to ''edit'' a page with 10,000 entries, so that's why you have a bot filling them out automatically. If there are several WikiProjects that could have "jurisdiction" over an article, And yes, Cyde, I really don't see a problem with all of them tagging the article (which won't happen, because not all WikiProjects tag pages, and not all WikiProjects are even active). More eyes looking at one article → better article. If it truly annoys you, you can always turn off the coffee roll templates on your personal CSS. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
**Ooh, is there a standard div id I can use to turn off all WikiProject notices? Granted, this just solves the problem for me personally, and not for anyone else out there who doesn't know how to do it, but I might as well solve one problem. --] 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
***They all currently use class="messagebox standard-talk"; that's the same as all the other talk page banners ({{tl|featured}} and so forth). I suppose we could introduce a distinct class just for the project notices, if people want to turn ''only'' those off. ] 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
****It's a good idea to standardize on a separate one for WikiProject banners, methinks. I'd want to hide WikiProject banners but not the usual talk page stuff. --] 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
*****I was thinking of going through with a bot and giving every header in ] an id of "t_{{PAGENAMEE}}", as honestly I hate seeing all of them. Adding a class="...wikiproject" or such (even if it doesn't have a class defined by default) would be useful too. ] 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised the first time I saw these templates, but I like the idea about rating articles on both quality and importance. True, many articles have only been tagged and not rated yet, but a large number of articles have already been rated. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

*This discussion seems to be related to ]. ] ] 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
** If it's just about talk page color, I can ignore articles with an empty talk page. How's that? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it would seem that no one is really against this tagging, or am I missing something? :) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is the correct venue for this discussion; if there really is disagreement about this practice we should find a better venue for discussion and seeking consensus. That said:
*WikiProjects do some great work and help foster community. I'd be very reluctant to impose any restrictions on them unless absolutely necessary. I don't see any such necessity right now.
*I'd fully support using a special div type for WikiProject banners. It's never occured to me before, but if some folks don't like seeing those tags then I have no objection to making those editors happier by making such a simple change.
*WikiProject banners are essential for Mathbot-based article assessment, as pointed out above.
*I believe the banners are useful to WikiProjects and therefore to Misplaced Pages in other ways, which I won't list here.
*"Turf wars" and which articles "belong" to which WikiProjects and how this is determined are some things which ''might'' at some point need to be talked about, but not here. We've (]) had a few disagreements in the past and some of our articles are also tagged by the Albums and Films WikiProjects and probably others. ''However'', different Projects tagging the same article doesn't even break the Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessment, especially for "]" because the importance is importance within the WikiProject, and then the enyclopedic importance is assessed by also factoring in the importance of ''that Project''. Having multiple gradings therefore doesn't break the system at all. --] 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Freakofnurture brought up an interesting point on IRC. Whether or not the talk page tab at the top of the page is red is useful feedback to the reader. Oftentimes I find myself wanting to know if a page has any discussion on it; if the tab is red, I don't even have to load a separate page. However, if all of these articles are going to be tagged en masse with this WikiProject banner, then none of the tabs will be red any longer, and some reader feedback will be lost. Also, I question the value of putting a banner on a page with so little traffic/interest that it doesn't even exist. What do you guys think about only putting the banner on talk pages that already exist, and not creating the ones from scratch that don't? --] 20:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
: See what I suggested above :) (18:21 UTC). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, that sounds acceptable then. Since no one else seems to be objecting I think I'll bow out. --] 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:Well, there would be three main reasons why we would prefer the banner even on empty talk pages:
:* The article rating component of the tags applies regardless of whether there's any other discussion going on.
:* Many of these pages are ''extremely'' low-traffic in terms of actually having discussion (some manage to make it up to FA status without any comments there). The banners still provide useful links for both the editors of those pages and other people (who are often more likely to get assistance with the article from the project than merely by posting to an empty talk page.
:* This will require a dedicated effort of trying to keep track of newly created talk pages so that we can tag them, rather than tagging everything in one go.
:Whether you find any of these arguments convincing is, of course, up to you. ] 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict) Indeed. The reasons ''for'' such taggings seem to heavily outweigh the reasons against (one or two folks don't want to load a talk page to find just a WikiProject banner). I reiterate that since this is currently the way things are done, and we're quite deep into Misplaced Pages 1.0 assessment now, this isn't the correct forum either. If this is a genuine issue affecting many editors (and I don't think it is) let's have a policy debate. --] 20:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::The article rating component only applies if you're actually ''rating'' the page. I don't see the point of turning a red talk page blue with an empty rating slot. Yes, if you want to take the time to also make an assessment of the page then it's a different situation. Also, I can't believe that an article has made it to featured status with a red talk page. Can you give me any examples? I still don't think the questionable benefits of having a WikiProject banner on a previously nonexistent talk page outweigh the loss of feedback provided by that talk page's nonexistence. --] 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, aside from the project banner and the fac template, obviously. In any case, if you want an example, ] had three tags and not a single word of actual commentary on its talk page when it was featured; does that count? ;-) ] 20:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Hrrmmm ... I didn't think such a page existed. Anyway, nice article. I shall read it soon. --] 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! ] 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Then you don't (or more likely don't want to) understand the assessment system (and indeed the WikiProject system). Knowing which articles a Project is watching over, and which are unassessed, is an important part of how the average WikiProject operates. This is the way things are done (and for the benefit of the wider Project); and admin action isn't going to stop it. Make a policy debate out of if you don't like it (<s>that's an invitation not a threat :)</s> but please don't, we have enough to do with W1.0 assessments), but for now it's ''status quo'' and ''c'est la vie''. --] 20:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Edit --] 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Please, let's not have any "not-threats" here either. ;-) ] 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Happy now? :) --] 20:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I know how the assessment system works (when the assessment is left blank it's put into a "to be assessed" category, right?). I just don't think it's worthwhile creating talk pages out of nothing to put them into a blank category. You could save yourself a lot of page edits if you just compiled a simple list of pages to be assessed. --] 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: Well, I do find it useful. Every now and then, a lonely article pops out into ], and that is picked up on ] (and the summary), so I know a new article was created, so I can go assess it. So, useless to one doesn't mean useless to all. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 21:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
(Sorry, me again) Actually, I would like to add that prior to the W1.0 assessments scheme I would, in the case of very large Projects, agreed to you. I remember creating new articles on albums and shortly afterwards a {{tl|Album}} template would appear saying "this is part of WikiProject Albums". I remember thinking at the time "who the hell are they, why are they taking credit for work they had no part in, and what use does that tag serve appearing on thousands of talk pages?". I do believe that the W1.0 assessments changes things considerably, however. --] 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having these ratings for every article but I don't see why they should have to get there through a single very active project - the importance and quality of an article aren't tied to a particular project. And, as others have mentioned, things are being tagged that seem rather marginally related to military history - I noticed '']'' was tagged. It could just as well get a tag from a WikiProject on Norway, or on the Middle Ages or on literature. Couldn't we just have one generic talk page template for people who want to rate articles for quality and importance? We could still have a parameter allowing us to specify individual projects or "task forces" that could help with the article. ] 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:Quality: perhaps. But importance, at least the way it's set up, varies from project to project. Something very important within the topic of "Norway" might not be that important within the topic of "Middle Ages", and vice versa. And there are also other things like project peer reviews/collaborations/etc. being listed in these tags. I think that trying to combine them all would be far too chaotic to bother (not to mention resulting in a template that would freeze the database anytime it was edited). ] 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am supposed to be on wikibreak, and about to be away from the computer for a week, but I thought I should chime in, since I wrote a bot (]) to maintain a watchlist for a project. I was inspired by ], and used it for ]. The bot can also tag all articles in a category as belonging to a project. This feature worked well for the main Numismatics articles (not Exonumia), but it ran into trouble in the Exonumia directories so I'm not using that feature now. I started this because I wanted to be able to watch what was happening in the Numismatics project, and had no awareness of 1.0. You can see the ] if you want. The {{tl|Numismaticnotice}} does not include a rating, but I find it useful anyway. As a new user, I had no idea that there was anything to Misplaced Pages beyond the articles and talk pages until I followed a link in a template. ] 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly ] failed miserably. --] (] - ]) 11:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:I would say "fortunately" rather than "sadly" as that essay is a terrifically bad idea. As I said in the talk there, tagging articles, including tagging by multiple projects, is terrifically valuable, and the advantages, short and long term, far far outweigh any minor inconvenience that having them might entail. The fact that ] has taken an amazingly large number of articles under its wing, and is steadily improving them, is something to marvel at, not something to consider harmful. And the idea that these project boxes are "spam" seems to show a fundamental misunderstanding of projects and how things get done. ++]: ]/] 11:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== Fair use image on a user page ==

See ], which has ] on it. I don't think this user is any friend of administrators, as seen by . And actually, that whole thread on ] seems like the work of... no, I can't say it. I'm not supposed to say it. Just deal with the fair use image on a user page. --] - ] 23:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:Removed (he also had one on his talk page). --]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
I think this user has an inappropriate username. Is that right? ] 00:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think it's that bad. We have this page: ]. ] 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::I'm borderline on it, but I will not block it. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:If you look at ], it could be inappropriate as "...it alludes to excretory functions of the body.."; you left a message on the user's talk page, let's see how it goes. ] 05:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::Somehow I doubt that they're going to be the next great admin, though. --] <sub>]</sub> 15:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::It was a puppet show aired in the UK, hosted by ]. See ]. ] 22:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== SEO spam ==

From my Talk page:

:''']'''

:You nominated a pair of articles by ] to AFD today with an "is there an echo here"? type comment on the second.

: Demonstrates that there is a company by that name involved in search engine optimization. One of the two companies you AFD nominated is specifically listed as an SEO client. I'm not sure what more to do, so I'm alerting you. ] 03:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As you'll see form the contribs of {{user|HayMeadows}} this is pretty transparent stuff, but I'm wondering whether any less blatant examples have crept in. Anyone who wants to take a look is welcome. ] 06:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== Please delete 'Boss Hoss' article ==

The ] article was nominated for deletion and then deleted. The user ] created it again.

Please delete it per the ]. --] 07:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

: Done, and on my watch list. --] (]) 07:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:: Mine as well. --]] 10:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Btw, next time if you see such recreation of content you can simply tag it with <nowiki>{{db-g4}}</nowiki> and no need to post in WP:AN. --] <sup>(])</sup> 11:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Per ], is there a "rough consensus" that this is an inappropriate username? ] 12:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:As you can see in contribs, only a trolling account to harass an admin. I support. --]] 12:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::Already indefblocked by Andrew Norman. ] 12:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::It's pretty clear who this "new" user is. --] (]) 12:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He has now been blocked. ]]\<sup><font color="blue">]</font></sup> 12:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

==Admin without email enabled==

] does not have an email address enabled, even though all admins, especially those involved in blocking users (as Karada is ), should be contactable outside Misplaced Pages. From what I've seen an RFA is extremely unlikely to succeed if the candidate does not have a valid email address. I have asked Karada twice on his talk page to enable his email or explain why he hasn't, but he hasn't yet responded (he responded to my first query on the 26th June which regarded a blocked user, but did not address the question of his email). I've checked his contributions and he has edited since I asked him last. Can someone please reinforce my request? --]<sup>]</sup> 13:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say that I strongly disagree with this "requirement". If s/he has their email turned off, that's their business; not least because replying reveals one's own email address. I can't say I've received a single adminship-related email ''ever'' which I got any value out of reading and which couldn't have been discussed here. Furthermore, if it's needed for appealing against a block that can be done on the blocked user's talk page. (I'm expecting a flame or two now, so let me just point out ''my'' email ''is'' enabled, albeit reluctantly). --] 13:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::There is also ]. ] <small>(])</small> 13:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with enabling email. When I get an email from someone who I'd prefer not to have my address in possession, I simply reply to that person's talk page. --] ] 13:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Sorry to disagree, ]. I think that there are some situations and issues that need to be discussed off the site. Read Misplaced Pages Review and the similar sites and you see that trolls and banned users love to see us talk about them. Also a quick direct conversation between two users, admins or editors, can be much more effecive than a massive discussion. ] ] 13:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::The user talk pages of blocked users are sometimes protected, e.g. due to abuse of {{tl|unblock}}, and that just leaves email. I'm not familiar with the mailing lists, but I distrust all off-wiki public fora, including mailing lists and IRC, given the Blu Aardvark fiasco et al. The point is that you should be able to contact the same admin that blocked you directly. If revealing your email address bothers you, just get a free one and use that. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I use a gmail address for Misplaced Pages, which strips my IP from the header, and have set it to only display my username as the sender (not my real name). So, it's no big deal if someone sees my email address. -] (<small>] ]</small>) 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an admin have an available email address, nor should there be. ]|] 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
<br>
'']] chimes in that he has email, AIM, and IRC "enabled"''

==user:Logologist==


I am writing due to inappropriate sock puppeteer ], which was identified as such in June 23 . This user should get punishment because:
# He used 3 sock puppet accounts. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=60172140&oldid=60171126
# He used these 3 sock puppet accounts (together with his main one) in voting on very sensitive issue – naming the main article of ruler: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_II_Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o/Archive_5#Sockpuppetry
# Violate "one person, one vote" principle casting 4 voices: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:W%C5%82adys%C5%82aw_II_Jagie%C5%82%C5%82o/Archive_5#request_for_move
# Misplaced Pages policy on sock puppetry during the vote is strict: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Voting
# Due to his united votes as ”oppose” consensus was not reached on article naming , if not these 3 votes the consensus could been reached than.
# Due to his voting, the weeks spent on talks gone in rubbish. ] 14:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:The sockpuppets were blocked and their votes discounted. The user hasn't edited for three weeks. There is no need for any further "punishment". ] 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::I believe his voices were not discounted (vote ended in June 13, he was identified in June 23). Only blocking sock puppets is an encouragement to other misconducts (not necessary by this user), because there was no outcome to the puppets master. But if you say its ok... ] 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

*Please take the matter to ]. <font color="#007FFF">]</font>''']'''<font color="#007FFF">]</font>|<sup><font color="orange">]</font></sup> 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== My block of ] ==
I have revoked the editing priveleges for this account after following clear instructions in both that article's edit summary history and on the article Talk page that unfree image cleanup should not be reverted. Per ]' to be strict about fair use abuse, this account should remain blocked until the user commits to not interfering with unfree image cleanup. One such a commitment is received, any admin should return editing priveleges immediately. I am cross-posting this here for review and to be clear that any admin considering lifting this block after receiving such a commitment should not hesitate to do so. ] 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:You did the right thing, in my view, and I note that he has now given his commitment and been unblocked, so the whole thing was cleared up in just a few minutes. ] ] 18:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::You shouldn't have blocked him over this. First off, the photo is a copyrighted by the Canadian government and is the official picture of the Canadian prime minister. A strong claim could have been made that the use of this photo to illustrate an article about the prime minister is valid under fair use. In short, this wasn't a nonsense fair use claim and you should not have blocked the user for disagreeing with you over it. In addition, I find it distaste that you blocked an editor over what was an editorial dispute you were involved in. You should have gotten another admin to do that.--] 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::You seem to be confused about two things here. The first is that I didn't block someone for a lousy fair use claim. I blocked an account that was replacing a free image with an unfree one. The strongest fair use claim in the world wouldn't matter -- ]. The second point is that there was an editorial dispute. My first edit was to revert back to the free image -- I'm not involved in any sort of "editorial dispute", unless enforcing ] and our ] is now an editorial decision. ] 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::Aside from the (admittedly not very applicable in this particular case) general point that determining whether a free image adequately replaces a fair-use one is, in some respect, an editorial decision, I am uncomfortable with the fact that we're handing out indefinite blocks to editors in good standing without even a warning. Unless the editor is actually refusing to follow image policy when asked to do so, there is no need for an indefinite block to be imposed. Indeed, in a situation like the above where the violation is very limited in scope (a single image on a single article) and the editor is not causing any substantial damage, I am unconvinced that we need apply a block at all ''before'' asking/warning/instructing them as to the relevant policy. ] 19:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::: is the Talk page note I left. Assuming that is insufficient warning that reverting image cleanup is not okay, what would you suggest? What is better in these situations? Revert-warring, page protection, or blocking? ] 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Leaving the same request you did on the editor's talk page, but ''without'' imposing a block; there's always time for that if they refuse. ] 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::We should all note &ndash; in general, and not just specific to this situation &ndash; that there is a distinction between an ''indefinite'' block and a ''permanent'' one. While both are implemented the same way technically, they can be handled very differently in practice. A permanent block is imposed on an editor who has exhausted the community's patience or by decision of the ArbCom; such a block is accompanied by the sentiment 'Good riddance, you're not welcome back here' (if not those precise words). Other indefinite blocks may be placed to mean 'You're doing something that you shouldn't be doing, after you've been asked to stop. Once you agree to stop, you'll be unblocked; I had to block you to get your attention.' Such blocks are meant to be lifted quickly and by any admin as soon as &ndash; but not before &ndash; the appropriate condition has been met. Particularly since we have the {{tl|unblock}} template, such 'indefinite' blocks should represent a small inconvenience for the blocked editor. ](]) 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::::Except that such subtle semantic games are rarely a consolation to the target of the block, particularly when we use overly formalistic languaged like "revoked the editing priveleges for this account".
::::::In general, requests and suggestions should be preferred to warnings, which should be preferred to blocks; not because it's any more difficult to remove blocks from a technical standpoint, but because of the effect of harsher measures on (usually) well-meaning volunteer editors. ] 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I actually agree with you &ndash; and with Jkelly's revised opinion &ndash; that the block was hasty in this case. But I don't think that any 'subtle semantic games' are being played here. Jkelly provided clear conditions for the lifting of the block, and was clearly monitoring the situation&mdash;Jkelly attempted an unblock eight minutes after Michael Dorosh agreed to abide by the policy. (I also applaud Jkelly's decision to post a notice on ''this'' page, so that other admins could review the situation.) If we're going to talk about the language editors use, I'd say that the intent and meaning of Jkelly's &ndash; particularly the part that reads "One such a commitment is received, any admin should return editing priveleges immediately." &ndash; are clear. ](]) 20:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand why you replaced the image and I agree it was the right move (assuming a better quality version of the pic can be found). The problem is that ] made what appeared to be a good-faith edit, reverting the image for a better looking one which had a valid claim at being fair use. Since you originally replaced that image, you were free to revert his edit and explain to him why he shouldn't have done that. Blocking an editor for one apparently good-faith revert, especially when the editor reverted your own edit, is not justified. If ] had reverted that image over and over, the block may have been justified but it would still have been better for another admin to block him since you were involved in the edit in question. Best, --] 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:This is still not the correct sequence of events. ] was the one who was doing image cleanup . Thivierr was then reverted, reverted back, and posted at ] about image policy. That's how the matter came to my attention. I reverted back to the free image, and left a strongly-worded at ]. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that I have some sort of personal investment or conflict of interest here. That's not the case. ] 19:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::I just noticed that ] is complaining on his talk page about still being blocked despite agreeing not to revert that image again. I thought his block was lifted.--] 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::I think I've cleared the remaining autoblock now. ] 19:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::This was a clear over-reaction and a violation of ]. Please engage in discussions with user before issuing blocks. ] (]) 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Nonsense. There was discussion. Assume good faith towards admins, please. ]|] 02:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Unrelated to the rightness or wrongness of anything, I hope that a better, useable picture can be found. ] is truly terrible (it is not the fault of the photographer, the picture was taken during a speech, which is bad enough for a portrait, and then it was cropped to show just the head). As an interim measure, the picture could be made far better with some simple editing (use the original and then recrop, of course). We should encourage this to be done ''before'' uploading the picture, if we don't already. :-) -- ] 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
::::I totally agree. After all, this is the prime minister of Canada. If someone had replaced Bush's official picture with something like this people would think it was vandalism. While we should not use non-free images when a free image is available, if the free image is of horrible quality then (perhaps) the non-free image has a decent claim to still being used under fair use (notice I said perhaps, I'm still not sure on this).--] 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean to suggest that the original picture should be used, just that a freely useable picture should be found that is better than the current one. I suppose if there was a valid fair use claim that it would be preferable to use the original, but I don't know at what point quality is so bad that it cannot be considered an alternative freely available picture, or if there is no such point. I guess that we should be grateful that it isn't a child's drawing. ;-) -- ] 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

], I'm glad to hear that you don't have an editorial stake in this article, although the issue of which image to use does appear to be an editorial decision and since you edited the article to use one image that seemed to me to have involved you in the dispute over the image. I still believe, though, that there was no need to block the editor over this one revert. Simply explaining the situation to him would have been enough. After all, we block people for a pattern of abuse after giving said editors sufficient warnings. Best, --] 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:I agree that he should have been warned first. I don't know if it is true in this case, but people frequently don't read edit summaries or the talk page before editing or reverting. Also, if he was aware of the message(s), he may have thought that he had a legitimate fair use claim when he reverted. That makes it a disagreement over whether an image is fair use and not a willful violation of policy (deliberately using an unfree image that is not fair use). -- ] 19:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::No "fair use" claim justifies replacing freely-licensed content. See ] for more details. This is perhaps where some confusion lies. ] 19:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::There was a discussion ] where it was argued that up to date information was more important than license. Also, ] was argued that, if the free image was not "suitable", a fair image should be use instead. Useful reading. -- ] 20:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::::It has also been argued that we should get rid of ], ] and ]. ] 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::I was referring to the conclusion both talk reached, not whether the discussions had any valid point for changing the policy. Discussion is good, especially in a topic that is easily "abuseable" by a casual user who happens to be browsing around. -- ] 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::That there is confusion is the point and we should consider that users may not have read things like Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria. ''I am not arguing that the content should have not been removed''. I am arguing that an indefinite block without warning was a bad idea. A user may think that he or she is correct in replacing poor quality free content with high quality unfree content that he or she thinks it can be used under fair use. It does not matter if the content cannot be used under fair use because that only tells us that the content should be removed. It does not tell us whether an indefinite block without warning was the correct thing to do because that depends on the user's intentions, not whether they are right or wrong about a fair use claim or a policy. That is why I think a block without any warning, especially an indefinite block, is a bad idea in this type of case. -- ] 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Consensus does seem to be that a note at the article Talk page was insufficient warning that blocks might happen. I'd like to invite further discussion about whether page protection or revert warring are better alterantives. I'm concerned that there seems to remain some confusion about whether or not reverting unfree image cleanup is some kind of individual judgement call, and that we should treat replacing freely-licensed content with unfree content casually. All of that said, if consensus is that blocks shouldn't happen without significantly more warning, I'll commit to not blocking for image use violations without a warning on the user's talk page, and consider this to be a bad block on my part. ] 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::I think that part of the issue is confusion over the meaning of "alternative" in the criteria; this can be interpreted as meaning either ''any'' free image, or ''only'' a free image that is a suitable replacement within the context of the article. In other words, it may be unclear whether we should prefer free images even where there are concerns that their quality is so deficient as to make them useless; or whether we can temporarily retain the fair-use images (in places where we have legitimate claims for such, obviously) until a ''suitable'' free image can be obtained. ] 19:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The non-free image was re-added by ] , and re-removed by me. I request admin action on this. --] 04:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

On the general issue of use of the free image, I feel the standard should be: would we use the free image as the lead photo, if there was no alternative? If the answer is yes, we should only use a free image. The free image does not have to be as good as the non-free image. That's an impossible standard. Very few people/organizations are going to donate professional studio quality photographs to Misplaced Pages, and we shouldn't pretend they ever will. Also, I concede the low quality of the free image. But that's fixable by a industrious Wikipedian either taking a new photo of Harper, or getting somebody who has a photo, to donate it (e.g. a supporter who wants their leader to look good). There's no incentive for such hard work, if we're unwilling to give preference to free images. ] is demanding the free image be as good as the non-free image. But that's unreasonable. It need only be "good enough". Also, I note there's ] option as well. --] 04:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== Links to racist sites & anti-Islamic POV ==

The article on ] was edited by an anonymous user, who inserted links to the far-right, racist British National Party and included POV statements like "claims to be a moderate but revealed himself to be a born jihadist." It also included unsubstantiated claims of death threats made by Bunglawala to the anti-Islamic far-right weblog Little Green Footballs, which have not, as far as I'm aware, been discussed anywhere but on the aforementioned weblog.

I request that the administrators look over the edit history of the article, investigate the links to the British National Party and Little Green Footballs, and take appropriate action against the user: ].

] 18:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::Looks to me like simply inputting information that isn't reputably sourced. As offensive as you may find it, in my (non-admin) opinion, its no worse than any other article being edited with nonverifiable content and this user shouldn't be punished more strictly simply because what he input was pov and sourced to a weblog, or deemed anti-islamic. ] 19:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually, logging in as anonymous user to input links to racist organisations (namely the ], which has leaders convicted of race-related offences as well as links to Holocaust denial and violent groups) in order to support Islamophobic comments, I believe, is significantly more than just using "nonverifiable content." It's vandalism and abuse. ] 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::::I still don't understand though. In this edit ] inserted initially the information that you're reporting ] for. It was subsequently deleted and readded by several users on quite a few occasions. You're claiming that ] "logged in from an anonymous user to input links to racist organizations" is not in keeping with ]. You'll notice here that the page was blanked by ] and then the user you are claiming is pushing an anti-islamic pov (]) merely reverted the page blanking without adding anything that was not present before the blanking. The only vandalism I see on this page is the intentional blanking of all content by ] which is covered on the ]. What you have here is a content dispute between yourself and several other users. It should be discussed on the talkpage civily and all users should try to work towards a ] on the content of the article. As is now, there is nothing that ] has done on that page that warrants any action by an admin. The IP user was reverting the blanking of a page, not pushing his/her own agenda. ] 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::::'''SIDE NOTE''' ], the user who intiated this report, added the semi-protection tag to the article. ] is not an admin and does not possess the necessary permissions to protect/unprotect pages. I about falsely representing adminship. ] 19:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== Hipcrime ==

] is a page that seems to be repeatedly subject to image vandalism. The changes are repeatedly reverted and then the reverts are reverted by the vandal. The reverts usually come from open proxies so a vandalism alert template is useless. The page was semi=protected but an admin removed it a while ago. I'd like to request that the semi-protection be reinstated. ] 20:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This article is undergoing an edit war - just keeping under the 3RR. Can someone do something else to solve it? ] 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

::I have contributed to this article, as have a number of quality editors... The other person reverting, has made no contributions to Montanism whatsoever, but just waded in out of nowhere a couple days ago, and announced that he says the article is no longer "allowed" to start off with "Second century AD" - but rather, must say only "Second century" - leaving the reader to figure out from the context that it is AD and not BC. He has made all kinds of ultimatums to me, including on my talk page, and when I don't answer all of his petty arguments quickly enough or to his satisfation (I really have several much more important tasks than minor details like this), he starts reverting again. Unfortunately, none of the other actual contributors to the article beside myself seem to have noticed, perhaps they are all on vacation this summer. I would love to see what some of the other people who actually wrote the article think about this. ] (]) 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Misplaced Pages (and this article in particular) is not of your property. This means that a right contribution made by anyone has the same value as your long-standing contributions. Your complaint, however, shows the way you work. You immediately revert my edits, but "have several much more important tasks than minor details like" answering my comments. Only recently, and after reverting your reverts, I got some kind of attention from you. You gave your points, I countered them (I would say I showed they were wrong or of lesser importance, but this is POV) and you simply told me to wait for "other people who actually wrote the article", after reverting, of course. Is this your way to settle the matter, ignoring other's comments but reverting their edits?--] 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know. But the fact is I have have not "ignored", but have replied to each and every one of your comments, as the record will show. I guess I just didn't respond to your satisfaction. I consider this an minor irritating nuisance over something quite petty, that is beginning to get more than just a little out of hand. I know this article is not my property, and never insinuiated that it was. I am only asking you to please chill out until we can get a third opinion besides yours and mine, preferably from someone who has actually had something to do with the actual article. Thank you again. ] (]) 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:I was talking about comments on your ]. I usually avoid using edit summaries to discuss my position, they are not suited for this purpose. And I got angry for the way you had time to revert but not time to answer. You remembered a bit later to talk, and only after reverting to your version.--] 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

*Unfortunately, a look at this editor's contributions has shown that he has now taken it upon himself to go all across wikipedia, making sure that "AD" does not appear in any article. Is this not defeating the spirit of the rules regarding Eras??? AD is customary, traditional and explicitly allowed by the rules, it specifies what calendar is being used, even when it is obvious, that's just the way its always been done. ] (]) 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Dear Mr. ፈቃደ,
:I would like you to understand what other people are doing, before attacking them. I have been removing redundant ADs and CEs, as well as uniforming usage in the articles. I think I need to tell you (because you claim to have no time to read my posts or understand my edits, but you have plenty to revert my edits) that this means that I remove AD/CE where not necessary, inserting them where necessary, and making articles that use both AD and CE to use only one of the two formats (apart special articles that use both, of course). This does not mean that I am deleting AD from all the articles. I also noticed in your talk page, that you have several problems with dealing with others' edits about AD/BC/CE/BCE matter, so, before claiming I am going "spirit of the rules regarding Eras", understand what the MoS says, and meditate on it.
:Thanks. --] 22:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)



], of course... ] (]) 23:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== Linkspam from user 198.187.154.33 and Robbyfoxxxx ==

] has been adding a commercial link repeatedly to ] and other Romani-related articles. It's a link to a discussion forum for a language course based on a single textbook, and looks like it's meant to drive up sales of the textbook. I've warned him three times with the Spam tags, but he persists. ] 01:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

] has gotten involved and continues to spam the link. ] 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:This would probably be best suited for ].--<font style="background:white">]</font> 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== Request for restoration of deleted article to user space ==

Can I get the deleted article ] restored to my user space? Thank you in advance. ] 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Done - but be careful what you do with it! ] ] 07:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== We need to scour the Image namespace ==

At ], I summarize the results of a 100-image spin through the namespace. I found that roughly 41% of our images are fair use, and of those, about 93% do not meet the requirements that a rationale and source be provided. More administrators need to be checking on image copyrights and trying to keep the namespace clean. If you don't feel comfortable with copyright issues, there are quite a few resources on Misplaced Pages to explain our policies - get informed and get involved. (])<sup>(])</sup> 06:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:And anybody who is not an admin but feels qualified to make these judgments should feel free to tag the images for deletion or list them here. There's nothing stopping folks from bagging the trash and leaving it outside the janitor's office :-) ] 09:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::41% of images as fair use is a lot lot higher than most other estimates, which tend to give the figure as less than 10%. Granted that many free use images are now on commons, so the proportion of fair use (which are kept on English Misplaced Pages) will automatically rise. ] ] 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::41% is reasonably consistent with the check of 1800 recent uploads I did back in March: I found just over 50% of new uploads had a fair-use variant license tag. Even if it was only 10% a year ago, the flood of new image uploads would be enough to raise it to 40% today. --] 18:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:Is there a Random article function for images.] 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
]. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:well my servey of 32 images found 46 percent fair use and one unlabled.] 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Alot of fair use images are being uploaded now and that isn't good in my opinion ] ] 18:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Seven percent meeting the bare minimum of compliance with policy is higher than I expected, but then I spend most of my time looking at the ones that don't. Our sorting and warning about deletion projects could certainly use more involvement, and don't involve admin actions in any way. ] 18:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Fair use isn't the only problem though. I know ] is lieing in him image uploads but since he isn't responding to comments on his talk page there isn't much I can do without going through WP:PUI which is time consumeing.] 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

::With image undeletion, there's no need for PUI to take two weeks for the obvious cases. That still wouldn't change the fact that it takes longer to go through the steps to get an imagevio deleted than it does to upload it. ] 20:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== MarkSteere ==

{{vandal|MarkSteere}} created a vanity article which was userfied but speedily recreated in main space, kicked up a fuss about ] and is currently ]. I have an email acknowledging that {{vandal|Advocron}} and {{vandal|CluePuppet}} are sockpuppets of the same user; it is also inconceivable that {{vandal|Mark_Steere}} is anyone else, and {{vandal|PearlMcPurry}} is probably the same person as well (contribs deleted with the {{article|Mark Steere}} article). According to this email, "If I have to choose one of the three names, I'll go with Advocron, since that most accurately describes how I wish to participate - by advocating for people who are ganged up on by deletionists, and whose new articles in my opinion qualify as notable and encyclopedic." In other words, the account was created to ], a point which he has started making at and . I came across CluePuppet because of participation in an AfD, ] - this article was created by a search engine optimisation company to promote a client; I thought it was a sock of the SEO spammer but Steere says otherwise. What, if anything, should we do about this user? ] 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*Indefinitely block all the sockpuppets and leave the main account active. While having sockpuppet accounts is fine, using multiple sockpuppets for the purpose of having additional commentary is not. He's been using these multiple sockpuppets to participate in AfDs & DRVs, and he's also been launching personal attacks against the "evil deletionist cabal". Definitely not good faith. Note: only for accounts that are either self-admitted or confirmed (by CheckUser or whatever). --] ] 14:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*Mark is disputing some of the sockpuppet accusations (on the Unblock mailing list). I haven't confirmed it with him, but it appears as if he is admitting to ] and ] (] and ] would be assumed). He claims not to know about any other accounts. --] ] 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Note:''' As a show of good faith, I've deleted the user pages of ], ], and ]. I don't know if Mark actually wanted the ''accounts'' deleted, but I've explained that it's not possible, and I think he'll be satisfied with having the user pages deleted. --] ] 20:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

] has had a backlog for over 24 hours now. --] 12:10, 7 July 2006 (]]])

== Request on my talk page ==

I had a request on my talk page to take a look at ]. ] has created an individual page for the team roster of every season (], ], and so on). Now, my question is, can these be speedied (for having no real content)? Or do they need to go through AFD? I'm inclined to apply common sense and speedy them, but last time I did that, I got no end of grief. Will have a word with the creator either way. ]<I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B><small>]</small> 12:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:I would say, send them through AfD as a group nomination. They do have content... I don't think the community will ''want'' that content though. ]]<sup>]</sup> 12:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Couldn't you just redirect them back to the main article? ] | ] 12:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::That's what I'd do - they can be split out again if there is anything notable about an individual player list. ] 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

== AfD history problems ==

Hi folks, things aren't working the way I thought they would. It seems that ] is a nomination closed on 20 March 2006. When this article was renominated, the nominator didn't create a new AfD, rather, he cleared out the old page and replaced it with a new AfD. I tried to split the two versions by deleting the page and restoring all the edits from 20 March 2006 and back. I then moved this page to ], and restored the latest history to ]. However, things didn't work the way I thought they would, and after multiple attempts to delete, move, and merging histories, I am now left with the old 20 March 2006 AfD, and while the AfD says that there are deleted edits in the article history, when I try to restore the edits, it says that there are no edits in the history! Can a more MediaWiki-savvy admin take a look at this and fix it, then tell me what I should have done? Thanks, --] ] 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

:Clear your browser cache. I'll try to split it. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*Ah, okay, thanks. I saw things were okay, then restored to my last "closed" version, but I'll leave the splitting to you. Please let me know how you did that so I can repeat the steps when I have to do it again in the future. :-) --] ] 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::All done. Just clear your cache before checking the history, and you should be fine. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::Great, thanks. It's that damn browser cache. :-P --] ] 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::::In fact, it's the server that's not invalidating the proxies properly. It's a longstanding problem which happens with the history page when you have deletions or undeletions (it shows more often when you are doing a page history merge/split). --] 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

== please investigate vandal administrator ] ==
The following pertinent and highly researched links keep getting removed by birdmessenger. I have been blocked a few times by a rougue administrator that vandalizes by the alias: ]
* www.catholic-jhb.org.za/articles/prayers.html List of Catholic Prayers
* www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=39909 Prayer in Judaism
* www.bahaiprayers.org/ Bahá'í prayers - a list of prayers from the Bahá'í faith.
* www.sacredspace.ie Sacred Space a daily prayer site by the Irish Jesuits, using the Ignatian tradition, a branch of Catholic spirituality dating from the sixteenth century
* www.tlpn.org Live Prayer Network - The largest prayer system on the net, in minutes add live prayer to your site
* www.epray.org Prayer Software - Get prayer, prayer for others and have it sent to any mobile device
* www.liveprayer.com Live Prayer with Bill Keller Live Prayer with Bill Keller


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Someone please investigate ]'s history in reference to the ] page.] 02:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
== Third opinion please ==
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.


] '''Miscellaneous'''
As entertaining as ], I think it needs an external eye. I have also received an Email from ghirlandajo regarding is "eff off" edit summary, how necessary he is to the project and similar matters, which I will disclose if requested. Ghirlandajo has been warned before (notably in an ArbCom case) about his confrontational editing, uncivility and personal attacks. ] 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
:I wouldn't necessarily have issued a block of any length for this, but he is being overly aggressive and confrontational. It's clear that you are not in a content dispute (in particular, you did not reinstitute your edit after blocking him), but it would have been better if someone other than the person the "eff off" comment were directed at had conducted the action, since it could be seen as an impassioned response to an insult. ] 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::Actually, I didn't care much for the "eff off" (although his severe issues with WP:OWN are something else). It's really the "troll" comment for leaving a {{tl|civil2}} on his talk that triggered it. ] 19:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::I think it's quite necessary to impress upon Ghirlandajo the fact that nobody—no matter how many articles they've started—is exempt from the requirement to stay civil. It will be regrettable if the only way to do this is through blocks—it would certainly be much easier for everyone involved if he were to change his behavior of his own volition—but, if nothing else works, I suppose there's not much else to be said. ] 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


----
First of all, the regretable and totally inappropriate "Fuck off" comment was from months earlier. Please do not use it to justify anything here. Second, eyes at the talk page provided by Circeus are invited indeed. I think admins should avoid borderline actions in cases where they are involved, especially since user:Circeus admits that he ''"mostly hasn't been doing much user-related stuff since becoming an admin and that he needs guidance, so he wants to get some guidances"''. Blocking is the most serious punishment available and one has to be absolutely sure when using it, especially due to an issue where the user involves himself. I regret that Circeus lost temper. I suggest he removes his block himself and if he after ] thinks the block still may be warranted, refers it to other admin's attention at ]. --] 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
:The Fuck off (or more exactly "eff off", occured today . Within twenty minutes, having done a single revert, I was called a "revert warrior" (see previous diff) and a . Ghirlandajo, with all his edits and experience, and having been warned by the ArbCom, should have, of all people, been aware that such comportments are not accepted on Misplaced Pages. ] 19:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{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 ==
I then agree the remark was inappropriate. The rest of my message stays then, see above. Your referring the case to experienced and uninvolved admins at WP:ANI would have been the proper thing to do. I think you are taking this personally. You have the full right to do so, but not to use Admin tools while at it. Is there any reason not to have others decide on the issue? Please think of it calmly. Whether you self-revert your block or not, I think this is truly a borderline case and you should have posted it to WP:ANI for others to act on it. I do not accuse you in acting unethically. I think you simply lost the temper, also judging for your entries at talk, but that's just my opinion. --] 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
repost from archive:


The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither.
::Seems pretty trivial to me (especially considering that Ghirlandajo is not a native speaker of English). Anyway, at least we now know that we ought not disagree with admins, ''or else''... --] 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ].
:::Telex, c'mon. ] 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
::::My point is, JK, that even if it was done with the best of motives, it seems more like a revenge block than anything else. As there was interaction (i.e. conflict) in an article editing capacity, I think C was perhaps too involved to be issuing unilateral blocks. IMO he shouldn't have blocked, but asked someone else to review the situation (you maybe). --] 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
* : 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''
:::::Actually, Telex, if memory serves, Ghirlandajo has insulted me in the past, so I suggest that your example helps demonstrate the point I was trying to make below. ] 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
Circeus, since you were an involved party, you should take the affair straight here, and not blocking him yourself. My $.02 -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.


---
:So the way to make sure one never gets blocked for incivility is to just insult every admin who warns you? That's a brilliant system. ] 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.


As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I'm sorry, I don't get your sarcasm... They were involved in an edit war over Spanish Baroque article prior to that comment. I'm fairly new to Misplaced Pages, but if memory serves, you can't be a judge and a party if you're an admin... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


:Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's very borderline whether there was an edit war; certainly the cause of the block is only tangentially related to the Spanish Baroque article itself. While it would have probably been a cleaner solution for Circeus to bring up the issue here rather than enacting a block personally, the block itself seems quite justified, so it's a fairly minor point. ] 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: OK, I see your point Kirill. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
I suggest we brush the motives aside. Circeus was right to refer the case to this board. More correctly, he should have gone to WP:ANI and let others, with experience and uninvolvement, to sort it out rather than using the strongest possible tool in his disposal. There is no foul play here. We all loose temper at times. We should simply realize when this is happening and have some ] to cool down instead of pressing buttons. --] 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
*As it is, Ghirlandajo's block should have expired by now. ] 20:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Too bad then. Self-reversion by the blocker would have been a useful gesture, even if a symbolic one. --] 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.


] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
If someone would be so kind as to look at . I'd prefer avoid any additional interaction with this user. ] 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
: I'll try and talk to him... (Incidentally, I already did several days ago because of another incident) -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
::::* To who would this be a threat?
::::* Which law?
::::* In which country?
::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Copyright question ==


: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)
This edit shows the insertion of a block of text lifted verbatim from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Leaving aside the fact that copy & paste of big lumps of text is almost always a sign you are doing something wrong, and the fact that it's part of a POV pushing campaign by {{User|Vaquero100}}, I'd like to know form the copyright spotters here what would be the copyright status of lifting large, uncredited blocks of text from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. I've restored the redirect for now. ] 21:23, 7 July 2006 (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 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)
:Our article on the ] suggests that it's public domain, so this seems okay from a legal standpoint. The issues of properly crediting the source (e.g. {{tl|1911}}) and of the suitability of such an old text for inclusion are, of course, quite separate. ] 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::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)
:Assuming there hasn't been a new version published recently aprox zilch.] 00:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
* Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
::Unless I've missed it, and that would mean that I *really* haven't been doing my job, the Catholic Encyclopedia, in it's entirety, is PD. It is, of course, polite to credit the source, but there should be no issue with including the information. It does, however, need to be vigorously fact-checked for accuracy, since it was published before Vatican II and the other sweeping changes of the 20th century. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <font color="#7b68ee">(<small>] • ]</small>)</font></span> 06:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
:::I'm guessing that weholesale copy-pastes of entire articles should be on Wikisource, not here. ] 12:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
::::No we have complete copies of EB1911 articles around.] 12:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}


:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] vandalism ==
::* 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.
The page was recently semi-protected, then unprotected. It needs semi-protection again. --] 22:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{ab}}
*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
:I was the one who protected it and subsequently unprotected it during the last disruption. The circumstances at that time involved an uncooperative editor who was ttrying to push a particular POV while attacking other editors, all the while using tons of different IPs. The past days' vandalism are just that, standard good ole fashioned random vandalism, no coherent attacks visible, so protection is not necessary. Just be vigilant. --] - '']'' - ] 08:36, 8 July 2006 (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)
== Major sockpuppeting problems on ] ==


:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There are some major sockpuppet problems with ], leading to edit warring when even some of the most divergent interests were compromising and proceeding in a ] manner. The page has been semi-protected, but banned user ] has worked around semiprotection by creating new accounts, waiting a few days, and then delving into the fray that he created. It's highly disruptive, and this article was finally starting to see some good progress. I don't have the time to go through the administrative channels, but I would appreciate it if anybody who does have the time, and is interested, would take a look at the issue and try to resolve it in a judicious manner. --] 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:I second this post, Hogeye continues to use both open proxies and throwaway accounts to edit on this and other anarchism related articles, and it is getting incredibly annoying. ] 22:13, 7 July 2006 (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)
==URGENT==
Someone really needs to stop this guy, he is fast deleting every single "AD" from wikipedia in express violation of policy. What will it take to get an admin's attention??? ] (]) 22:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:What guy? --]] 22:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::He is talking about me, it is a continuation to ]. I already answered there, and he duplicated his request with this "URGENT". Note that he is going to revert many of my edits. I am losing my temper with him. (written before following text, blocked by edit conflict)--] 23:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
], of course... ] (]) 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


:Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:He was already asked by one admin to "'''STOP IT'''" On the Montanism page... Now he is enforcing his own interpretation of the MOS to decide that AD "isn't allowed" on scored of pages... ] (]) 23:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
::I came to the conclusion that is useless to discuss with this guy. He does not read my points, but is promptly reverting most of my edits. I hope something can be done to settle this matter. Thanks.--] 23:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::Lokks like Codex Sinaiticus has a friend, ], who just reverted 15 of my edits, calling them vandalism. What should I do, start reverting them, or this matter is going to be solved?--] 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.


Somebody do something PLEASE!!! He is edit warring with me over the article ]. He wants it to say Paul was born in 9. How is anyone supposed to deduce from that whether Paul was born in 9 AD or BC? I wouldn't even know myself. In the past 20 minutes alone, AD has disapeared from another whole slue of articles. His interpretation of the MOS is overly rigid. ] (]) 23:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
:This is an example of CS way of thinking. If I write Paul was born in 9, what does it means? According to Manual of Style, AD/CE year does not require tags, and in this article no other year is BC/BCE. What should I do, stop editing because CS loves to see AD everywhere? As regards Paul, I left AD for the year of birth, as a compromise, but this is going to be ridiculous.--] 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br>
::Read it more clearly. AD is acceptable. It is also traditional practice. And the MOS makes a point of saying that crusading across the wiki invading articles and messing with it is seriously frowned upon, because it starts edit wars, as we are now seeing everywhere. Even on the Montanism page where this all started, consensus is to keep the AD. ] (]) 23:43, 7 July 2006 (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)
:::This is not the place for this discussion. Let's continue it on ].--] 23:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
'''THIS ISSUE IS STILL NOT RESOLVED''' Numerous Admins have pleaded with him to stop, ignoring them, he has now resumed his campaign to delete all AD's that he considers to be redundant. He is also one of thre most argumentative users I have ever seen in 1 1/2 years as a wikipedian. ] (]) 19:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
==]==
::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Could a disinterested admin please close this discussion? All of the referenced articles besides just the ] article are clear hoaxes and damage Misplaced Pages's reputation. I wouldn't mind seeing the rescinded ] deleted as well, but if not, I'll list it for afd after completion of the George Eyre discussion. ]|] 02:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
:::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
:::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
:::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
:::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] copyvio? NN bios == == ] 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.
] refuses to respond to ] about his posting of non-notable potential copyvio (they don't look original, but I can't find a web source, I presume they're from books) bios (such as these . Would it be possible to block this user for something like 4-5 hours (he seems to come back every several hours and post 2 more, I presium he's typing them up) with a message to respond to the concerns?--<b>]]<sup>(]ˑ])</sup></b> 02:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


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


== Call for mentors ==
It seems that the entries for ] and ] are virtually identical. An IP editor brought it to my attention, and he's right - we've got the same text in both these entries, with the only difference being one says 'Novak' and the other says 'Belitsky.' I think that Novak is the real guy described in the text, but I'm not sure. Someone needs to investigate, because this is kind of embarrassing for the 'pedia. ] ]<font color="darkblue"><sup>•</sup></font>] 03:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Well, according to , the Dooli character in the movie ''Haggard'' was played by Brandon Novak, so the Belitsky info seems shaky. ]|] 03:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ]&nbsp;] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
:I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
:I've PRODded ]. ]|] 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
== Block range against ] ==


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
A number of sockpuppet IPs with Leyasu-motives have been coming in from the 86.132.13* range, after the fourth blocked with numerous edits on ]-related pages, I enacted a 24-hours range block. See also ] and ]. ] 03:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
==User:Robert Steele==
] says :
:"I am going to tell you this just once. If you ever again publish anything on OSINT without a reference to my web site, I am going to black ball you where it will really hurt. I consider you to be a world-class dip-shit for failing to credit my work. ] 23:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)" ] 03:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::I'll go ahead and warn them to mind ] and block if this continues. Thanks ] 03:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::Now if that isn't simply begging for the removal of all spam links to his website, I don't know what is ;-) ] 12:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 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. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd like to bring to your attention that a few moments ago, a user has vowed a revert war on the Kosovo article, even though we have discussed it. He wrote: "''Unless we find some kind of compromise, this is going to perpetuate an endless revert war.''" I'm sure you're all aware of the agreements made on the Kosovo article, and I'll paste some text from the talk page by a valued admin:
*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Heritage Foundation ==
''Ferick and Ilir are consistently ignoring a key requirement: '''we report what our sources tell us'''. Our sources tell us, literally without any exceptions, that Kosovo is formally an autonomous province of Serbia under UN administration. See the list under ] above, and as TSO1D says, the CIA World Factbook too. Ferick and Ilir have consistently failed to provide '''any''' reference that says that Kosovo isn't ''de jure'' part of Serbia. Their claims that it isn't are pure ] and simply aren't admissible in the article. -- ] 19:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)''


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)
''::Ferick and Ilir have consistently tried to push the POV that (a) Kosovo was part of Yugoslavia, not Serbia; (b) it's not part of Serbia now; and (c) it's only regarded as part of Serbia because of a UN Security Council resolution seven years ago. We've already been through this at length in ]. Neither Ferick nor Ilir have provided any evidence to support their claims and they've consistently failed to explain why they are right and every other source - encyclopedias, books, newspaper reports - is wrong. Without sources, their claims are simply unverifiable and constitute original research, which are disallowed under two of Misplaced Pages's fundamental policies, ] and ]. -- ] 22:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)''


== Deleted contributions request ==
To all these arguments, Ferick has acted very dismissively, and is now threatening a revert war. I say we stop this before it escalates into a full-scale revert war, lock the page or block Ferick (and I prefer that you block Ferick) --] 05:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
==Quick jumping to blocks==
::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The trend to use blocks more liberally has been here for a while and, generally, I view it as a good thing. When I came here, 3RR and ArbCom was about the only source of blocks. Misplaced Pages changed and the policies written originally became outdated. This is all fine and understandable. Admins now issue blocks at once when the bad-faith behavior seems obvious to them or even for other less clear-cut reason. Again, I don't object to this trend. With more and more editors involved in Misplaced Pages, the danger of loosing potential edits became of lesser priority but the benefit from preventing the disruption outweighs the cost. However, certain blocks alarm me and I request trigger-happy admins, as well as anyone interested to calmly consider the following case-studies below. Recently, four valuable editors have received some short and medium blocks: {{user|Lysy}}, {{User|Mikkalai}}, {{User|Ghirlandajo}} and {{user|Piotrus}}.
:::{{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 ] ==
The first user in the list (blocked now for 8 hours) have shown some clear head and good judgement despite his having rather strong views on the issues. The other three (each of them having their own issues no doubt) are WIkipedia's Golden Contributors, true treasures of Misplaced Pages by the amount of the exceptional quality content they add to it on the daily basis. Take out those three and perhaps 10 more people, and Misplaced Pages would lose about half of its value. Since, according to ] the blocks of users with substantial history of valuable contributions are "always controversial", proper examination of these blocks should not be taken as an offense by the admins involved.
{{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Let's have a quick look at these 4 block histories:
{{abot}}


== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
*{{user|Lysy}} was involved in the edit war today over ] article. User:Donnog reverted there 4 times but Lysy reverted three times. Lysy was assisted by ] who reverted once, thus getting an advantage in the revert war. Lysy ] and following which {{Admin|Stifle}} (status held since March 2006) blocked ''both'' for 8 hours. Lysy, now grossly offended, requests an apology and the one doesn't seem coming. Lysy is obviously aggravated. The polite warning to him would have certainly have the effect without aggravation.
*{{user|Mikkalai}} was involved into an edit conflict with {{user-full|Nixer}} at the ] article this June (see ). Nixer has been a problem user for Misplaced Pages most of the time which is not an excuse for Mikka but should have be taken into account in making a decision on acting against Mikka. Also, an extremely high value of Mikka's contributions is unquestionable. Mikka was blocked at the time by {{Admin|Samuel Blanning}} in status also only since March 2006. Mikka and the issue is closed. Mikka's previous block, much more controversial was issued by {{admin|Ronline}}, a newbie at the time. That block caused quite a stir, especially since Mikka was reverting {{vandal|Bonaparte}} who was abusing the articles though open proxies IPs to avoid 3RR. Many people remember that block, Mikka behaved as really and seriously offended and demanded an apology, which was never issued. I was very much afraid that we are loosing this invaluable Wikipedian. Thanks god, things cooled off and Mikka is around, one of the most valuable editors and no-nonsense admins
*{{user|Ghirlandajo}} was involved today in the edit conflict with {{Admin|Circeus}} over the ], an especially fine article Ghirla ]. A word needs to be said about Ghirla. For his contributions see his userpage. His value of one of the most knowledgeable, dedicated and prolific editor is unquestionable. At the same time, the user is often rather opinionated and, at times, even rude. His immense positive impact overall is no excuse for the occasionally short temper, which I am pointing out myself before someone comes here and starts to deflect the discussion into the civility issues. I do acknowledge them. Now, back to the issue. Following the edit conflict, and a unnecessary harsh reaction of Ghirla (which I don't condone) to the meaningless (IMO) edit of {{user|Circeus}}, the latter places a "template:Civil" warning to Ghirla's talk. Now, this action is easy to perceive a provocation. The patronizing templates like "test", "vand", "civil" were not intended to be used to communicate to anyone but the newbies. Furious Ghirla responded by calling the template placement "trollish" and Circeus who feels offended responds with a block(!). An ensues and more is said at ] . Judging from the reaction, several users found the block unnecessary. It is also notable that Circeus, like the admins above, is a relative newbie, who said himself on this matter "". However, the natural thing to do in such case, especially if one feels like the guidance would be helpful, is posting a notification of the problem to ]. This wasn't done. Block was issued and only then the guidance was sought. Please read the entire section above.
*{{User|Piotrus}} is one of the most prolific and knowledgeable contributor to the Polish topics, also one of more neutral ones (we can only be neutral to a degree when writing about own nation). Last April he was blocked for an edit conflict at the ]. The conflict was obviously with a Sock, a new account that did nothing but edit warred with Piotrus and quickly ran to WP:3RR with a report. was issued by {{Admin|William M. Connolley}}, not exactly a newbie Admin but known for being exceptionally stern in throwing blocks including the lengthy ones (I do not consider that bad per se, to the contrary, old policies with soft approach are outdated). However, the admin did not bother to check what was going on, to see that a conflicting party was an obvious sock, something he must have done when dealing with an editor like Piotrus. Also, why was a polite warning not sufficient?
*A little different case, but on the same topic. In April {{Vandal|Bonaparte}}, who though blocked, keeps returning through new open proxies and sockpuppets, produced a false report on myself alleging a 3RR violation at ]. Those 4 edits he produced where not within a 24 hour time frame to begin with, of those only two were reverts, and reverts were not about the content dispute, but on the POV-tag the sock was reinserting to a well sourced article refusing to give a required by the tag explanation at talk. A detailed analysis is but the overall issue is similar. There were plenty of red flags to give a complaint a detailed analysis (submitted by a non-use IP accountr, time stamps in complaint missing, etc) and still the analysis was not done.
I could see how nice it could feel to decide who to punish and who to spare, but getting into judging the issues requires an utmost responsible and careful approach. Studying the matter carefully instead of making a hasty decision should be a must. Yes, people are busy, but no one requires from any admin to frequently check WP:3R and WP:ANI and impose blocks on the problem users. If one doesn't have time to do it with care, better not do it. There are plenty of other admins. If one takes upon himself to enforce the rules whose misapplication is emotionally sensitive to the editors involved, he should take an extra time to study the matter. We've seen the aggravation of some very respected editors for being illegitimately blocked or chastised on the sock/troll provocation or by the conflict co-participant or otherwise inappropriately when the blocking Admin didn't care to study the matter or was too eager to exercise the powers, or lost his temper or because those powers were newfound or because they were acquired too long ago to remember about the responsibilities that come with them.


The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
To summarize, I do not advocate any special treatment for anyone just because of his past contributions. Violators should be punished. I also do not advocate the return to softer treatment times. Blocks by judgement are necessary. However, no block should be issued in haste or when someone's own head is hot. Such a common sense rule as studying the matter, especially when the user is established enough to be sure he knew what he was doing (perhaps there were reasons), is no less necessary as before when the blocks were more rare. I submit these thoughts hoping they would help to decrease an amount of future aggravations for all of us. --] 06:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:'''Note to admins: It's a good read''' --]] 06:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::Indeed. I have unblocked Lysy, but it is mostly a symbolic gesture as his block was about to expire anyway. I do not think he deserved this block anyway. In the other three cases the blocks have expired, so now we have to mend the hurt feelings of the extremely productive users. People who work more on Misplaced Pages then on their paid jobs see us, admins, as the people who owe them some gratitude and respect, it is worth to spend a few more minutes before taking an administrative action if we can make solve a problem in a more respectful way. It is easier say than done, obviously ( I am afraid I am guilty in a harsh 3RR block as well), but lets try. ] 06:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*I will make one comment on factual matters, that is that ] requested an apology on my talk page fifteen minutes ago, and this was the very first I had heard of it so could not be expected to make one by the time of this post. ] (]) 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
*After consideration, I wish to observe that blocking Lysy did not serve a useful purpose and was incorrect on my behalf. However, I remain on record as saying that he revert warred. I also wish to note that Alex Bakharev neglected to consult or even notify me about unblocking Lysy. For now, though, everything is at its desired state. ] (]) 21:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


:Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s>
== Don't like doing new article or speedy delete patrol? You're missing out. ==
:That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] - '']'' - ] 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)]]
::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
:::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. ==
Seriously. Every once in awhile you get some priceless jems that you never want to let go of. Serve your community! =D
{{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:''Pandaroo is a very attractive girl who is very nice and very fun. She was born on June 7th 1988 and lives in California. She has just graduated from high school and is now moving on to college. she spends most of her time photographing different sceneries and photoshopping them as well. On rare occasions, she enters 64digits.com, and leaves her mark, which is looked foward to by the guys of 64 digits.''
This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Speedy deletion needs YOU! --]] 09:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


:I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I've heard rumors of a listing of new pages, but rarely see any reference to it and never a link. How would one find such a creature? ] 10:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Now an IP {{IPlinks|2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B}} has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. ] (]) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Hide this racist edit. ==
:You can find it several ways. One is that people with Cologne Blue (and I assume some of the other themes) have a link to "New pages" on the left hand side (or somewhere on the page). ] is the direct link for the page. It's also on the ] listing. I used to be a patroller of the page. Kind of gotten out of the habit recently. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Sneaky vandal to be aware of ==


:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The blocked user {{userlinks|HeadleyDown}} (under whatever names he edits) is likely to be looking for another area of Misplaced Pages to attack, having been blocked multiple times in as many months.
:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}


== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
This note being posted because of his extremely subtle approach to extremely destructive vandalism, and the way he gradually drives ''bona fide'' editors off Misplaced Pages. He is almost impossible to spot (appears to be "just another POV editor with personal attack tendencies") unless you have seen his "style" elsewhere before. Editors ultimately burn out either from AGF, from wikistress, or from rebutting personal attacks.
{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}


In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
Please ], to become familiar with his approach, in case articles you work on (or try to resolve disputes on) are affected in this manner.


*
User has gradually tried (successfully) to destroy a number of articles, and burned out a number of administrators and article mentors, before being identified as a specific problem. With a long history (18 months+) of this activity, two RFArb's, and having just been removed from two articles, there's little doubt he plans to continue if he is able. Hence this post.
*


Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. ] (]) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 12:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== 96.230.143.43 ==
*Thanks for the info, FT2! ~] <sup>(])</sup> 01:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
== Uncooperative user ==
::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
If there is a more appropriate place to put this, please let me know. ] has been adding his to the ] article. I promptly removed it, citing ] because the message board has under 100 posts and fewer than 25 registered members. Before this, he made some nasty remarks on the ] that led me to believe he's more interested in advertising his website than following policy. He , saying that my revert was a personal attack on him. I do not want to engage in an edit war, but it's clear this guy will keep adding his fansite regardless of policy. What's the most appropriate action to take in this case? ] (<sup>]</sup> | <small>]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks"></span></sub>) 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:Upon reading the history of this page again, I think this user believes that I am operating a competing message board, and am removing his message board out of spite. I assure you this is not the case, as I often remove non notable fansites from articles (search for the phrase ''WP:EL'' in my ]). ] (<sup>]</sup> | <small>]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks"></span></sub>) 13:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


== Harrassment link on user talk page. == == StoneX Group Inc. ==


I’m concerned about the page at ]
Can someone look at User Chadbryant's talk page, under the Paragraph "Notice to Admins".
He has a link to what can best be described as a libelous hate site about a person he apparently has a real life issue with. This looks totally out of line with Misplaced Pages policy.


There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk page in question.
:Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Permissions Removal ==
Link to the website itself.
{{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
] 14:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Unblock requests == == ftools is back! ==


I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I've seen a few unblock requests, and no consistent way of handling them (from a simple technical standpoint, what to do with the unblock request template). I made {{template|Unblock denied}} as an idea for how to handle this - replace {{template|unblock}} with {{{{template|Unblock denied}} and add the reasons for declining. This keeps the unbblock argument intact and removes from the unblock category. Let me know if this is a good idea. ] 18:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, this is a thorny problem. Another question is how to handle repeated unblock requests from the same user. To my mind it is reasonable for a blocked user to request a second opinion after one admin has rejected an unblock request but when two or more admins have declined it I suppose it's reasonable to short-circuit further appeals (keeping in mind that the blocked user can still post to the mailing list). ] 19:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


::Rather than 'number of admins' I'd suggest some sort of 'passage of time' measure. If a group of ordinary users get into a content dispute with some admins and are blocked for it they shouldn't be barred from requesting unblock because the involved admins declined their request (which I have seen done). Maybe put a timestamp on 'unblock' that expires (and removes them from the category) after 12 hours or somesuch. --] 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


== Block appeal for ] ==
:::That's actually an excellent idea. ] 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
:I like the idea. People declining requests are often leaving the unblock template active to allow for a second opinion. If we add a category for declined requests to your template, then we can decline an unblock, use your template, and still allow for someone else to come around to give a second opinion. ] 19:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
| status = unblock denied


:That has the exact same problem - removing the {{tl|unblock}} is inviting reversion. Why not just leave it '''and''' deny it? --] (] - ]) 19:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC) | result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. {{u|Aman.kumar.goel}} has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see ]). As you can see in the unblock request at ], they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, {{u|Ivanvector}}, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from ] and ] were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
::Well, sure, but we've got to remove it at some point or the category will get hopelessly cluttered. What solution do you propose to that? ] 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


:I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
:::Not sure - maybe something substed by day like prod? Or you could do what some IRC folks do for {{tl|helpme}} - have an IRC bot that monitors the cat for new additions and advertises them in a channel. --] (] - ]) 19:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


:While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
::::Okay, now you're talking. Prod templates live for five days, how long do you think it's reasonable to let unblock templates live? ] 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


:My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "{{tq|The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.}}". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
:::::You could leave them indefinitely and simply only use the recent categories. --] (] - ]) 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


:Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::What I've often seen is admins enclosing the <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> template in &lt;nowiki&gt; tags and providing an explanation of the denial rationale immediately underneath. That lets other admins see that a request was made and denied. ](]) 19:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:::The problem is that when you do that you remove the user from the category, so if you use the category to find who is requesting to be unblocked, this user will no longer be listed. ] 19:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
::::That's rather the point&mdash;it keeps the category from getting clogged up. An editor can seek a 'second opinion' by restoring the template with an explanation why the first admin's review was mistaken, or can pursue any of the other methods of requesting an unblock (email the blocking admin, email to the mailing list, query on IRC, etc.) ](]) 21:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
:::::That's also what leads to a revert war - the blocked editor places it back, and the admin that denied denies it again. --] (] - ]) 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== What are the "sandboxes"? ==
*'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I finally managed to find the correct place to ask this question. Basically, I'm not exactly sure what your website does and I wasn't sure it was true you could simply go edit a page. I gave it a go as a sort of test and some "messages" flagged up saying I was a "vandal" for just trying something out and got ordered to go to some "sandboxes". I wasn't linked to the said "sandboxes" and I had a look around but I couldn't seem to find any "sandboxes" or what exactly they entail.
:* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*:You need to re-check. , AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean ''now'' but I did not from the original posting. ] 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is {{tq|we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing}}, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates {{tq|someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them}}. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. ] (]) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], ] from AKG copied over:{{tq2|Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "{{tq|However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.}}" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for ]), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. ] ] 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. ] ] 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention ] would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it ]ing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with {{u|Ivanvector}}'s assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the ] that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual ''also'' had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. ] (]) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that ] applies here. ] (]) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I warned AKG ] for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.] (]) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::To quote what I had said then, "{{blue|I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing.}}" I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there ''were'' multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add ] on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and ] on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. ] 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. ] (]) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::: Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. ] 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. ] (]) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from ]. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. ] 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
*:I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than ''not'' agreeing to it. -- ] (]) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:: Yes, this is also my concern. I would have ''thought'' that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well ''outside'' that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. ] 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. ] (]) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. ] 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ] (]) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::*What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. ] 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. ] (]) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. are are recent examples from this noticeboard. ] (]) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as ''punishment'', but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. ] (]) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. ] (]) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per {{u|Ivanvector}}: i.e. dependent on {{blue|a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction}}. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. ]'']''] 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I find myself agreeing with {{U|Black Kite}} - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. ] (]) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. ] (]) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. ] (]) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. ] (]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). ] (]) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:<s>I would tentatively '''support''' with the TBAN they have now agreed to.</s> I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. ] (]) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support <small>(NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case)</small>. Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. ] (]) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:
{{Talkquote|After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from ], I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping {{u|Yamla}}, {{u|The Kip}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Caeciliusinhorto-public}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|Vanamonde93}}. Thanks ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
- ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Would they also consent to the ] topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd also like to ask what "vandalism" is in this regard. I've also envisaged vandalism to be ostensibly linked with spray cans and walls. If I caused some kind of permanent and serious damage by trying things out then you have my apologies.
:: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of ] and ], but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. ]] 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. ''']''' (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Very, very '''weak support''' on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support, but''' only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under ]. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. ]] 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - At the end of the day, the ] has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. ] (]) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --] (]) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. ] (]) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. ] ] 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Import request ==
Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. -- Paul Simms


Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span>


== Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 ==
:See ] for the sandbox you've been pointed to. See also ] for more details about what is considered vandalism on Misplaced Pages. --] 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


] this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). ]] 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:Sandboxes are test pages where you can test things without affecting "real" articles. There's more than one because there are many users, if they'd all use the same page for tests there would be conflicts. Registered users get a user page, and then they can use this (or subpages) for tests. As long as you have no account go to ] - that's a shortcut for "Misplaced Pages sandbox". At more or less regular times a program automatically cleans the sandbox, removing all old tests.
: Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. ] (]) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:BTW, this is not exactly the correct place for questions, check out ]. Be bold in updating pages, --&#160;] 22:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==


The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
==Possible illegality==


{{ivmbox|1=
I was working on the George W. Bush article in the discussion pages. I noticed that Queen Of Sheba left a remark calling for the death penalty for the president. I believe that is illegal and should be removed from the discussion.
The ] are amended by adding the following section:
<blockquote>
; Coordinating arbitrators
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.


Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
] 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI


The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
:You need to fix your signature by signing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> Quen of Sheba should be blocked. I'm going to take a look now. <font color="blue">]</font> | ] | ] | ] 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
* Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
::It also wouldn't hurt to run a quick checkuser on BMIKESCI and Queen Of Sheba--] 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
* Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
::*Sorry, minor correction, "User:Queen Of Sheba" doesn't actually exist, thus any checkuser should be directed at User:Shereen and/or User:BMIKESCI--] 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
* Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
* Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
* Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.


A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
== Template:Cite book -- page number problem ==
</blockquote>
}}


For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
From today's featured article, ], footnote 36:
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
:Michael Burleigh (1997). ''Ethics and Extermination: Reflections on Nazi Genocide'', 210-211, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521588162.
This was produced by ], which apparently puts the page number(s) before the publisher, in contradiction to every footnote ever written. IMHO, it should go before the ISBN. --] 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:00, 11 January 2025

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 3 2 5
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 7 14
    RfD 0 0 31 15 46
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

    Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

    This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety I am stating a fact. and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    "...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days". You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate on which aspect of this you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
    But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:MOS says: If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
    WP:AT, which follows MOS says: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Watch it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. ... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated Airliner crash, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Topic ban appeal

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

    I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
      I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
      I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
      This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'd say "racial issues broadly construed" is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

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

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

    Andra Febrian report

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

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

    Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

    Cannot draftify page

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

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

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

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

    Remove PCR flag

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

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

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

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

    "The Testifier" report

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

    Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

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

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

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

    Administrator changes

    added Sennecaster
    readded
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned
    removed Ferret

    Oversight changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

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

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

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

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

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

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

    repost from archive:

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

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

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

    ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    • Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

    An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

    Call for mentors

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

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

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

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

    Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

    References

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

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

    Heritage Foundation

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

    Deleted contributions request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

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

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

    Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

    Sinai and Palestine campaign semi-protected until the 23rd. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (changing Palestine to Israel ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hide this racist edit.

    WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

    That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. WaggersTALK 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please refer to m:SRM, if there are no active RMYWP admins available. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

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

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

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

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

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

    96.230.143.43

    Blocked, and WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback/dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    StoneX Group Inc.

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

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

    Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Permissions Removal

    Rights...left? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

    Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ftools is back!

    I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


    Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel

    UNBLOCK DENIED AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:

    I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
    While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
    My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
    Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Support as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:

      Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT." That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for WP:AN), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

      voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention WP:SHARE would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it WP:SOCKing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with Ivanvector's assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the assertion that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual also had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support: I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that Misplaced Pages:One last chance applies here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I warned AKG in October 2021 for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from arbitration enforcement. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
      I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than not agreeing to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. Azuredivay (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. Lorstaking (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as punishment, but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Ivanvector: i.e. dependent on a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. SerialNumber54129 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I find myself agreeing with Black Kite - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. The Kip 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. Nxcrypto Message 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would tentatively support with the TBAN they have now agreed to. I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support (NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case). Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:

    After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping Yamla, The Kip, Black Kite, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Simonm223 and Vanamonde93. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Would they also consent to the WP:ARBPIA topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE, but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. Girth Summit (blether) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Very, very weak support on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support, but only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. Andre🚐 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose, agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under WP:ARBIPA. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. Miniapolis 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - At the end of the day, the standard offer has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. Dympies (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --JBL (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. Shankargb (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. Star Mississippi 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Import request

    Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, they did create the page. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24

    Special:Contributions/109.172.86.0/24 this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). jolielover♥talk 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:

    Coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.

    Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

    The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

    • Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
    • Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
    • Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
    • Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
    • Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

    A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.

    For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
    Category: