Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 21:14, 14 September 2006 view sourceTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Giano: Giano has taken his concerns about the recent Carnildo affair beyond the level of reasonable discussion and has begun to make quite hysterical and false accusations. Brief block.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:08, 9 January 2025 view source Rsjaffe (talk | contribs)Administrators55,921 edits →Permissions Removal: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
	{{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/Archive57--><!--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>
	== Banned ] asking for lifting of his community ban ==
			==Open tasks==
	] has contacted me by email to ask whether his community ban could be lifted. He was banned after exhausting the community's patience after several months of incivility, personal attacks and disruptive behavior. The discussion of his ban can be found ]. Wiarthurhu's email proposes a set of conditions he feels are reasonable to accompany the lifting of the ban and which he agrees to abide by. I have listed these below verbatim - although this technically allows a potential breach of the fifth condition he lays down, any discussion of undoing a community ban has to take place in the open and I see no other way to fairly discuss this proposal.
			<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
			{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
	I am an involved party having blocked Wiarthurhu before for ] violations. My personal opinion is these conditions are not acceptable given the user's past behavior, but might with modification by us be the basis for lifting the ban. Obviously this is the broader community's decision.
			{{Clear}}
			{{Admin tasks}}
	Thanks, ] 21:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
			__TOC__
			</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
	Proposal:
	* I do have a problem with all of the authors listed on my rfC
	* I have very few problems with anybody else anywhere else on WP as long as I don't reference anything these above editors have done.
	* I agree to a three month self-imposed block on any article ever touched by any of the editors listed on the rfC, including talk pages
	* user wiarthurhu and all associated pages and records are deleted
	* I get another username which will not be disclosed to the above editors, some who have shown a pattern of searching everywhere I've ever been and attacking both my material and myself. The terms of this user agreement will not be disclosed to the above parties, who will assume that I do not exist, and I will provide no reason for them to believe that I still exist as a WP user. If detected, you can terminate this agreement.
	* I will cease to worry about the sort of things you folks have been tasked with fixing such as bullying behavior, or inaccurate content. Therefore, if challenged, I will defer. If ticked off, I will remain silent. It is no longer my job, it's the job of admins to enforce civility and factual correctness until WP rules are changed otherwise.
	Can we give this a 1 week trial?
	According to WP rules, a ban can be lifted if the user agrees to change behavior. I believe the above rules of engagement will eliminate all cases
	of conflict.
	Ex-wiarthurhu.
	:I am willing to ] and believe that he wants to change. I would support a second chance for him, but he must realize he is on a very short leash. If this is refused by the community, however, he could take it to the arbitration committee. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
	:As the dispute in question was beyond simply a user dispute but involved repeated violations of content guidelines and policies including ], ], and ], I am uncomfortable giving the user a fresh start unless these issues are addressed. The user still seems to believe the dispute is limited to "problems" between editors, and not incompatibilities with his edits and Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies. If the proposal is accepted as offered, the user will simply run amok of other editors and the processes we have observed over the last few weeks will be repeated. --] 22:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
	: Can't say I care much for "user wiarthurhu and all associated pages and records are deleted", beyond the normal right to vanish I can't see why we'd grant this user any special favours. --]<sup>(<font color="mediumseagreen">]</font>)</sup> 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
	: I'm deferring my comments until I see what others like Tony Sidaway or Cyde have to say on the subject. Beyond that, Wiarthurhu has been warned plenty of times that his behavior would either end up in an ArbCom case or a permaban, so he really can't say that he hasn't been warned. I personally warned him of this fact several times, and that didn't stop him from personal attacks or incivility. Perhaps I'll have more to say later, but for now, I'm at a loss for words. ] 05:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
	Just a thought ... How about if all that is initially promiced is that he is allowed to edit under the conditions he has set out ''except'' that he edits as an anon - which differs from his current position in that it won't be violating his ban. A month from now he can provide a list of his edits and it can be decided whether or not to grant him a user name or not. Just a thought. ] 10:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
	* I have no problem with him being unbanned; some form of mentorship should be agreed on, ''a la'' {{user|JarlaxleArtemis}} - remember ] and ]? --] 10:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Okay. I've had about twelve hours to sleep, eat, and think about this. I think it's obvious to me that Wiarthurhu has a problem with all of the authors listed on his RfC, particularly because some of them (not all of them) tried to get him to edit within the rules several times. I think part of the problem that Wiarthurhu cites was created by Wiarthurhu himself, especially by the creation of the now deleted Misplaced Pages strategy article and repeated ] and ] violations time and time again. I saw the problem in WikiProject Automobiles brewing long before he was banned, about the time our mediation at ] ended, and I didn't interject or start looking for things until the second and third MedCab cases were filed.
	::Wiarthurhu's references to these editors who he has a problem with are part of the problem itself. He has referred to the editors joining the RfC in a very negative tone, to the point of crossing the ] line, even to the point where some of his comments are within the scope of ]. He repeatedly has made comments along these lines in reference to Mmx1, ApolloBoy, and Karrmann at least, even going as far to call them Wiki-bullies and their supposed interference with him "evidence of Gang activity on Misplaced Pages".
	::If Wiarthurhu is to come back to Misplaced Pages, I strongly oppose deletion of his userspace and his associated records on the grounds that he's shown the same type of behavior in two separate disputes in two unrelated content areas against two groups of editors. What happens when the third or fourth group runs afoul of his intent? Further, Wiarthurhu has agreed to follow rules or suggested actions before which he's broken, and allowing him to create another name and dissappear from the radar would not be a prudent course of action, in my honest opinion. I don't think that he would follow a three month block of any article that these editors have touched, including talk pages, because if he was capable of self-restraint, I don't think he would have been permablocked in the first place. I don't mean that as a personal attack, either. Wiarthurhu has brokered "cease-fires" and peace agreements before, but when the other person doesn't play the game as he wants it played, then all hell breaks loose and more conflict comes to light.
	::Wiarthurhu has not been attacked here. To the contrary, it is usually him doing the attacking on other editors, especially ApolloBoy and Mmx1. Karrmann has also been a recent target of Wiarthurhu's scathing wit in addition, albeit Karrmann has also done a bit of pot-stirring in this case as well (for which he's been warned to cease). And, if Wiarthurhu's material and edits are called into question, it is because of the quality of his edits, not the fact that he makes them in the first place. So again, I strongly disagree with the community allowing him to get another username under the pretenses of non-disclosure.
	::Now, with that said, I would be in favor of Wiarthurhu coming back and being allowed to edit again, but not under the conditions which he proposes, and on a very, and I mean very short leash. I will pause here to save my contribution, and then I will continue in a moment. ] 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
	::Here's what I propose.
	# Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu and the editors listed on his RfC agree that they'll mutually avoid each other except through an interlocutor, a mediator, or a neutral third party for a period of no less than three months. Violation of this condition will result in a 72 hour block for any violating party, Wiarthurhu or otherwise.
	# Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of ] or ] against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
	# Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
	# Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.
	If Wiarthurhu is honestly sincere about becoming a better editor, and can change his Wiki-ways to conform with our standards, practices, the Trifecta, and Foundation goals, then I have no issue with allowing him to return under these pretenses. If he is not, then he shouldn't be allowed back, as the way it stands right now, there is more than enough evidence that I've seen to support a community permablock without question. ] 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
	As someone who signed the RFC, and peripherally involved but not closely enough to be emotional about it, I think his proposal is missing the point. Regardless of whether some of the RFCers were more active and emotional, Wiarthurhu's fundamental problem is not that he's being wikistalked. The username change won't help with that, and will help obscure the user history. If he's really willing to reform, he can do it under that username just fine as far as I care. If other editors or admins do start really wikistalking him then that would be a separate issue to be dealt with later, but I hope and suspect that if he does in fact reform he will have very few problems. ] 00:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
	:Wiarthurhu has e-mailed me, stating that he agrees to CQJ's terms, but the issue of him retaining his username or not still lies in question. Should he just use his current account, or should he be allowed to use a new one if his account is unblocked? <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
	::I am unblocking Wiarthurhu shortly given confirmation that he accepts the terms CQJ stated above, and CQJ also said he will help keep an eye on Wiarthurhu to get him back on his feet (I guess being a mentor would be the word). I have also suggested that he follows the one revert rule and that if he feels he is being harassed, to come to me or another administrator about it instead of responding in the interest of not sparking more fights. His account will remain under the same name. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I have unblocked him per CQJ's terms:
	# ''Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu and the editors listed on his RfC agree that they'll mutually avoid each other except through an interlocutor, a mediator, or a neutral third party for a period of no less than three months. Violation of this condition will result in a 72 hour block for any violating party, Wiarthurhu or otherwise.''
	# ''Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of ] or ] against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.''
	# ''Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block. ''
	# ''Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.''
	I have asked Wiarthurhu to come to CQJ or me if he has any difficulties. It would be best to keep an eye on him. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: I'm extremely upset that (as one of the aggrieved parties) the first I get to hear about this is when I see the 'unbanned' notice pops up on Wiarthurhu's talk page in 'my watchlist'. I should have been given notice - and given the opportunity to at least say something about the terms and conditions before the unbanning - why did nobody tell me about this via my Talk page or something? I believe unbanning this user after so little time is a serious mistake. Whilst he may be out of my hair for a while longer, I don't see anything in the restrictions imposed upon him that prevents him from terrorizing another neighbourhood as he has in the past with Aircraft and Automobiles. Giving him a fresh identity would just make that even harder to recognise if/when it does happen again. Notably, you are requiring me (an innocent party in this) to involve interlocutors or face a ban myself! I edit widely in Misplaced Pages - the odds of running into this guy again are rather high and I'm not going to risk a week long ban because of him. I have never been consulted about these terms - nor do I particularly think them appropriate. To expect me to abide by them without my prior agreement is asking a lot. IMHO, Wiarthurhu should remain banned forever - the destruction he has already caused to the encyclopedia in terms of wasted productivity and in people forced to take Wikibreaks in order to avoid the stree by far exceeds all of the contributions he is ever likely to make. We gave the guy a one week ban and he was back causing trouble within a day of it being lifted. Now we're telling him that even an 'indefinite' ban is over in a few weeks. We should have stuck with the ban for at least a year. I'm most unhappy at this decision - and especially how it was (not) publicised to the aggrieved parties. ] 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Steve's got a point. We really didn't consult him or any of the other editors that were involved in the situation beyond our involvement at AN/I and our fact finding, especially on the caveat that any editor that doesn't use an interlocutor can get nailed equally. With that said (warning to other editors: CQJ's infamous use of numbering points follows):
	:# I have already voiced the opinion that this situation could develop negatively for the encyclopedia. If it does, then we'll take appropriate action when and if the time is necessary.
	:# I agree that everyone involved should have had the chance to comment on the conditions of Wiarthurhu's return, especially when punitive action can be taken against a group of editors. However, given the discussion that I've had with Cowman in regards to the situation, and the fact that I'm now partially accountable for Wiarthurhu's actions since I've volunteered to be his "mentor", I will do my best to make sure that this agreement doesn't come back to hurt anyone within the scope of ] or the Trifecta, and that includes Steve and all of the other editors who listed in the RfC as well as Wiarthurhu himself. But I will not tolerate anyone, neither Wiarthurhu, nor any other editor involved in this dispute (and I won't mention names) spreading incivility and personal attacks on Misplaced Pages, and those editors know who they are.
	As such, I propose modification of the "terms" to the following, and I encourage enforcement of these modified terms unless there is a grave reason to stick with the terms already agreed to. Saving contribs, copying the terms, be back in a moment. ] 18:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	#Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in a one week block for Wiarthurhu - and any editor baiting Wiarthurhu will be subject to the same.
	#Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block.
	#Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.
	Is this acceptable? ] 18:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	Sorry, but I don't know if I am in full support of this. He would often treat me like I don't belong on Misplaced Pages just because I am 14, and claimed that he is a better editer than me simply because hes older, without even looking over my edit history. He would take pictures of toys, and plaster them all over Misplaced Pages in places they don't belong, then called me a "Prolific teen vandal" when I took them down (Though I left them where they belonged, like in the Johnny Lightning or slot car articles) I am sorry, but I do not want him to come back.he was a major headache to all of the Wikiproject automobiles, and I felt a LARGE weight was taken off my shoulders when he was banned. I also don't like the idea of giving me a week long ban for getting into a conflict with the guy. I get severly pissed when people claim that I am not as good of an editer as them just because I am 14. If you look at my edit history, you can tell that I am up with par with the older editors. The guys would do crap and age discriminate me, and call me a prolific vandal when I would take down any of his toy car pictures, or remove his POV from articles. I also had a large headace with him combating my liking for the ]. In a deleted article, I wrote an entry for the Taurus, which I admit, sounded a little pro Taurus, and he acted like it was pure POV, and rewrote it with stuff like "Many people would be su] 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Sorry, it looks like I forgot to change some things in there - basically what I mean to say is that Wiarthurhu is the one who will be watched, and he is agreeing to avoid you guys for the time being while remaining under the same account should he be watched. Others indeed should not be subject to blocking for this, but nonetheless provoking him is innappropriate and people will be warned if they do so. So, here's a revision of the terms.
	# ''Accepting that Wiarthurhu has a problem with the authors listed on his RfC, and the authors accepting that they've had problems with him in the past, Wiarthurhu agrees that he will avoid the other editors he has had trouble with in the past and will speak with them through a mediator.''
	# ''Wiarthurhu agrees to immediately cease and decist in any action deemed to be in violation of ] or ] against ApolloBoy, Mmx1, SteveBaker, Karrmann, or any other editor that has joined in dispute resolution mechanisms against him in the past. Violation of this condition will result in another block for Wiarthurhu.''
	# ''Wiarthurhu will avoid any article within the scope of WikiProject Aircraft or WikiProject Automobiles for three months, as he has suggested himself, or be subject to a one week block. ''
	# ''Further, a mentor (or several mentors) from the community will be assigned to Wiarthurhu to help him out wherever necessary or possible.''
	# ''Also, other editors are warned to not provoke Wiarthurhu, and warnings will be handed out if that occurs.
	There, I admit that I somehow completly overlooked the application of the earlier agreement towards the other parties involved - I guess I was too busy focused on the Wiarthurhu part to realize that. Does this sound more appropriate? <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Let me be frank here. I understand your concerns, and Steve's concerns, and everyone else's concerns as to allowing Wiarthurhu to come back. The behavior you cite above was taken into consideration when Wiarthurhu was blocked in the first place. He was warned for ] violations when calling you a "Prolific teen vandal". We understand why you were making the edits that you were making, and believe me, I'm very familiar with the timelines and who started what, who said what, and when they said it.
	:Cowman's modified things above (while I was writing this...grrrrr). Wiarthurhu's essentially agreed to leave you guys alone as much as possible, and if he can't, then he's supposed to get a hold of Cowman or I and we're supposed to come help out. At the first hint of impropriety, then we'll cross the bridge of further action. Until then, well, I'd suggest that you not state that you're going to set another contributor's computer on fire, regardless of how you feel. Relax. The situation is well at hand, and neither Cowman or myself or any other administrator or editor that cares about this encyclopedia as deeply as we do will allow things to continue in the manner in which they have in the past. ] 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: Since Wiarthurhu is to be allowed to return (against my better judgement...but whatever) - I have no problem with the present (or previous) requirements on both him and his former victims. '''My''' main problem was that I had not been consulted - and now I have, that's OK. For Wiarthurhu to have any chance at a fresh start, far from the people whom he's upset so badly, it is obvously necessary that none of us inflame the situation by chasing after him - so "don't feed the trolls", and "if you do you are in trouble too" are not a bad set of principles (''so long as you tell the hypothetical troll feeders first!''). Since Cowman and CQJ are both going to be on watch for bad behavior, the rest of us should be able to relax and pretend that life is still good (and if it's not good - it'll get good again within the time it takes someone to type the word "blocked" in the right place). You guys are definitely going the extra mile for Wiarthurhu - I sure hope he appreciates what you are doing for him and adds more value to the encyclopedia than he subtracts from it! Let's all hope this works out. Thanks guys! ] 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	Wiarthurhu contacted me on ], with 3 messages, two that asked is I am "That evil genious kid from Misplaced Pages", and the other was asking where I got a Taurus commercial from. I think this may be in violation of his agreement, espcailly because he called me an evil geneious. ] 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Everyking desysopped ==
	Recently it was brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee that administrator {{admin|Everyking}} has posted to an external site in the process of trying to determine the contents of inappropriate material, sensitive personal information, deleted from an article. Everyking looked up the deleted material using his administrator privileges, and offered to post the deleted content publicly. He stated:
	:''I looked for you, but when you look at deleted revisions it doesn't show you the changes (or if so I don't know how to access them). I guess I could just post the full text and you could work out the differences yourself.
	It is already known that the user who posts at that forum under the name "everyking" is in fact ] because he has confirmed it in email to the Arbitration Committee previously. We view this as a serious misjudgment and a betrayal of the trust the community has given him in adminship. As such, Everyking has been immediately desysopped. ]·] 23:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC) ] 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:This is shocking and I call for it to be overturned. I didn't actually post anything (being worried that SlimVirgin might get pissed) and even if I did I don't see how it could be a betrayal of anything. ] 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Your cooperation with Wikipediareview is questionable enough. ]|] 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::You may not like it that I post there, but since my speech is severely restricted on WP itself I choose to post my views there instead. It violates no policy to do so, and I don't believe it would have been in violation of any policy even if I ''had'' posted the text there. In any case I had not posted and about two or three days had passed in which I did not deliberately didn't follow up on it because I thought better of it. ] 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I was just thinking that, Zoe. Plus, there he had once advocated unblocking Amorrow. ] <small>]</small> 23:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I don't remember ever arguing for him to be unblocked on WP, and I certainly wouldn't want that now. ] 23:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I should think that advocating the unblocking of a user is not grounds for any sort of sanction, else we would have had to toss Danny out for advancing the notion that ] could be reformed. ] 23:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Garcia was bad. Morrow is scary bad. --] 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::The point is moot because I do not think he should be allowed to edit. I'm well aware of his harassment of our female editors. I ''did'' argue he should be allowed to post his crap on WR, because I support the notion of it as a free speech forum, but that is not pertinent. ] 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::In this case he was cooperating with banned troll Wordbomb to uncover sensitive deleted information. ] 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Tell me how. ] 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	::The legal implications of allowing someone who is willing to post personal information removed from an article by an administrator access to sensitive deleted content should be clear. You made it clear that your continued adminship was a liability to the project. ]·] 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::What the? Personal information? I didn't even know what the content was. I ''still'' don't know. I sure as hell would never post anybody's personal information. ] 00:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Is it clear that EK recognized what the nature of the deleted content was? Or are we now adopting a policy against posting delete pages, period? ] 00:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::There is a reason personal information is removed and viewing of it is blocked. Legal reasons. Everyking clearly attempted to get around those reasons. ]|] 00:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I explicitly did not know and made that clear in my comment (I stated that I couldn't determine the differences in the revisions). Now I gather that it was personal information, and I take offense at the notion that I would be willing to post that. Nothing in the thread was there to tell me it was personal information. ] 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I would be inclined to agree with Everyking. This seems to me to be a startling failure of WP:AGF. ]]]<small>]</small> 00:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I will say, given the clearly stated suspicion on the page that the subject was a Misplaced Pages editor, some more care might have been in order. But honestly, I'm skeptical that this is in and of itself grounds for an emergency desysopping. It seems more like a case of the arbcom seeing an opportunity to justify a penalty they've wanted to put out for quite a while. (After all, Everyking's willingness to support real life harassment of users should hardly be news to anyone who has followed my own case.) ] 00:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::That Everyking was willing to "post the full text" of a deleted page without knowing why it was deleted or what it contained is somewhat worrisome. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::But did not actually post anything. This is a critical point. What I read there gave me the impression the admin action was done wrongfully, and I was at first willing to help out, assuming that to do so would be OK with policy, but then decided not to because I was worried there could nevertheless be ramifications (as there were anyway, obviously). ] 00:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Have you said anywhere you wouldn't post the content of deleted pages ever? Or apologized for saying you were willing to do so? That would certainly be a start, but without any assurance from you that you won't ever do this, your desysopping should stand as you are a liability. ] | ] 00:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::No, I didn't know there was anything wrong with doing so. But given the trouble it has apparently caused, I will make that assurance now. ] 00:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Could you please directly address pschemp's questions? She did not ask if you knew there was anything wrong, and your assurance is in response to a sentence. I'm not picking hairs here, please answer the questions. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 00:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::::This is outrageous. Retrieving/posting deleted material is a '''basic right''' under the GFDL (but one that should not be exercised if the material was deleted for legal reasons or contains sensitive detail, of course.) When are people going to understand that '''Misplaced Pages does not own content'''? It's not OK to copy something I (for example) write into other Misplaced Pages articles just because I posted it here, without giving me attribution. It's not OK to accept my (for example) contributions under the GFDL then delete them and deny the Commons access to them. What if another site wants to publish it? What right have we got to deny the use of GFDL material to anybody? Absolutely none. I am genuinely shocked and outraged at the suggestion that Misplaced Pages has any right ''whatsover'' to material posted here above and beyond the rights assigned to it under the GFDL. --] 13:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Indeed - Misplaced Pages would be hard pressed to persue legal action against someone who posted deleted page content. Hence the lack of takedown effort on Wikitruth. However, the GFDL does not constitute an obligation to make content available, and the GFDL offers no protection outside of legal protection - whether someone is an admin on a website is wholly outside its purview. ] 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::The answer to both of the questions is no. However, I assure everyone that I will never again offer to post the content of a deleted page anywhere (much less actually do so), no matter what the content. ] 00:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I guess the basic lesson to come away with from this is don't get too cozy with banned trolls ''anywhere''. --] 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	This was a gross and obvious violation of Administrator trust. Let us all remember that we have the power to do great harm, and we must resist the temptation to do so at all times. Private information is not ours to disclose; we only have administrator powers for one purpose: to improve Misplaced Pages. We cannot usually do that by publicly compromising private information. --] 00:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Many administrators including, if I'm not mistaken, you at some point, Tony, have offered to post the content of deleted pages to those interested under certain conditions. Everyking made an offer to post the content of a certain deleted page and then thought better of it. ] 09:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I did not disclose anything. How is it a violation of trust? ] 00:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::You ''offered'' to do so. That you didn't follow through is beside the point: you made the offer. --] | ] 01:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::What does the offer matter compared to the act? Isn't the question whether the material is made available? And it was ''not'' made available, because I decided not to make it available. And furthermore, the offer is merely a helpful gesture. I thought going through with it might anger SlimVirgin but never imagined that it could get me desysopped, because I never imagined it was a violation of anything. As it turns out, I ''didn't'' do it and still got desysopped. ] 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::The disturbing thing is this, as said by you "I didn't know there was anything wrong with doing so." If you weren't capable of understanding that revealing deleted personal information was wrong at the time you made the offer, then you shouldn't be trusted with such information. It shouldn't take a desysopping to make you understand what was morally wrong with that offer. ] | ] 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::You're missing a key detail: I didn't know it was personal information. I would never have made the offer if I had known that. I take a very strong stand against compromising personal information. ] 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::If that's the case, you're also a liar. We know from long experience what your attitude is to "compromising personal information". ] 01:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::With such long experience, you should be able to recall a few examples to support this claim against my integrity. ] 01:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Perhaps I could post that charming email you sent me after the WR folks started stalking me, or the congratulatory post you made to WR about Kelly Martin after the same, or...shall I go on? ] 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::I'd like to see that e-mail, actually... ] 13:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::You offered to post deleted content without even knowing what it was? That's even worse.] | ] 01:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::Yes, if you read what I wrote originally on the board this would be obvious. I clearly stated that I did not know what the content of the deleted edit was, and I was offering to post the full text so others could figure out what it was. And when we are talking about what is better and what is worse, we should be mindful that ''I decided not to do anything at all''. ] 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::I did read it. Nowhere there did you say you weren't going to do it. ] | ] 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::''You're missing a key detail'' No, you're obscuring the key detail, given that the subject is your powers of judgment -- or lack thereof: you offered, without investigation, understanding, or thought of the consequences and/or liability -- to reveal something which had been deleted. Your lack of judgment being in question on the issue of whether you should be allowed to have powers that can be abused, it's ''perfectly'' relevant to discuss the things you ''say'' you're going to do, not just those which you succeed in carrying out. --] | ] 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Nice rhetorical twist there: "succeed in carrying out". What do you suppose kept me from succeeding in this diabolical mission, so that several days passed in which I posted no deleted content, until this desysopping hit me like a bolt from the blue? ] 01:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Rhetorical twist? No, a reality check. And given your history of nitpicking wikilawyering, to accuse someone else of twisting words is a bit rich. Project much? --] | ] 02:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Come on, man, tell me why I didn't "succeed in carrying it out". ] 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::I suggest everyone abstain from replying for now, since this discussion is rapidly deteriorating. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::I agree with Prodego. Nothing is to be settled here, at least until the emails and other communications stop flying. This was a notice; while commentation is encouraged I think Everyking and all the other users need to walk away for a day. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 02:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, I didn't ''say'' that, I just abstained from replying to the thread any further. ] 01:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	Regardless of the situation at hand, I do want to remind everyone that deleted content - especially deleted revisions of an article - are deleted for a reason, and that special concern needs to be taken when viewing and discussing the material. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Special concern, yes, but withholding GFDL text from the commons if it doesn't contain sensitive info, absolutely not. If Everyking didn't post such info I don't see what the problem is. Furthermore, am I to remove {{tl|user recovery}} from my user page?! --] 13:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Special concern, definitely. But I do want to point out - again, disregarding the situation at hand - that Misplaced Pages policy is sometimes more restrictive than outside law. In other words, even though something may be legal, it may be prohibited under Misplaced Pages policy. However, I do reiterate that I'm not commenting on the situation at hand. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 16:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	Last I checked, Misplaced Pages doesn't own the internet. In the past, deleted content was retrieved and posted elsewhere. The highly controversial Brian Peppers fiasco came to a close when Jimbo deleted the article and the article was transwiki'd in full on the YTMND Wiki, and remains there to this day. There should be no reason why in this case posting deleted content outside Misplaced Pages is against Misplaced Pages policy. The content is outside Misplaced Pages, not in it. Stuff that is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages isn't to be censored and banned from view by the entire world. What Everyking did may have been wrong morally, but to impose a sanction on him before he actually did it without warning is just as bad. I say resysop him and let the community vote to see if there's a consensus to take him down. I don't think showing deleted content is a breach of trust on us. Rather, I think quite the opposite. Refusing to allow people to view things, especially if they wrote them, is a breach of trust. I don't know exactly the situation completely, but I do think that there should have been less unilateral action. ''']''' 02:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:It's funny, but the question of a warning, or some sort of prior contact, hasn't been mentioned before. There were three days that passed between my suggestion and the "emergency" desysopping. If somebody believed even after that interval that I still might post the content, and felt strongly that I should not, then the obvious first option should've been to simply ''say'' to me: "Hey, in case you were still thinking of doing that, please don't; I believe it may contain personal information." In this case the response from me would have been: "I wasn't planning to post it, and now that I know it contains personal information I am very happy that I did not." ] 05:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:The deleted content apparently contained personal information. In the past, such personal information has been used to harass editors, etc. Revealing that information would not be like letting an editor simply view a bad vanity article he wrote, it would be exposing rather private information to some persons who have in the past used such information in threatening ways. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 05:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::We should be glad that this did not occur, then. Everyking offered to post the contents of a deleted article, which is a common enough occurrence, but as he says, he did not realise that it contained personal information. The key point is that the personal information was not posted. The over-reaction is akin to taking away someone's driving licence for speeding when a driver says that he will travel at a certain speed. Even if he is aware that the speed limit has been lowered on that road, there is no act to warrant punishment. Seems to me that policy is being made on the fly here.
	::I'm all in favour of desysopping for misbehaviour, but let's leave it until we have a clear case, because if we start desysopping for what people think but don't do, then we might as well say goodbye to a whole swag of admins. --] 06:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	===]'s reply to thread===
	I ought to mention that I also responded to that thread, having checked the contents of the deleted revision. I made , saying that the revision was deleted because it contained "what appears to be personally identifiable information". I did not say what that information was. My intent was to establish that the revision was properly deleted, and to defend the admin in question.
	On one or two other occasions in the past I have responded to posts on Misplaced Pages Review, having checked deleted revisions, with the intention of defending other admins' actions. I have not actually publicly disclosed the contents of any deleted revisions. I ask the community to advise whether these actions were acceptable. --] (]) 00:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I think you should definitely discontinue that practice, though I don't think any action should be taken against you in the circumstances, since you were apparently motivated by loyalty to WP and your colleagues. I can't say the same for Everyking. We have every reason to lose confidence in an admin who would even contemplate posting deleted information on another site. It's not a matter of whether there's a specific policy against it; it should go without saying - a matter of basic common sense and team loyalty. Everyking is entitled to have certain ideals of free speech, or whatever they are, but if he is at all inclined to pursue them to assist Misplaced Pages Review then the honourable course for him is to avoid any conflict of interest between his ideals and his corporate loyalties. The way to do that would have been by voluntary relinquishment of his admin powers. This desysopping should not even have been needed. ] 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I would have made the offer just the same on WP itself if the question had come up and nobody else addressed it. There is no "conflict of interest". ] 01:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Just a note: The signpost will be covering this this week so some names maybe mentioned in the article. <font color="blue">]</font> ]/] 01:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::In this case, I would like to read the article before it is published to ensure that nothing inaccurate is said about me. ] 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Sure. I'll show you the article when it is done. <font color="blue">]</font> ]/] 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Discontinue the practice? Defending admins on Misplaced Pages Review, while probably futile, is hardly harmful; if Bainer finds this a useful pursuit, why shouldn't he keep it up? &mdash; ] | ] 02:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: I'm inclined to agree while I would urge Bainer to excercise caution letting them know why something was deleted might help matters. ] 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	...
	Checking in both the user rights and a log search shows that Everyking still retains his sysop powers. ] 02:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't. My rollback, delete and protect buttons are gone. ] 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Did you check the meta rights log? Desysoppings show up there, not on the local wiki. --] 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	'''(edit conflict)''' I checked the user list and it doesn't show sysop anymore. ] 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	I would suggest that nobody get involved with Misplaced Pages Review in any capacity. It's not even worth it to show up there to try to defend yourself or other Wikipedians. Just ignore them. --] 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: As a personal matter I agree because frankly most of the people there are trolls or worse, but if a user or an admin wishes to slum, we shouldn't stop them (I am strongly not endorsing Everyking here. To even think about posting deleted material without talking to the admin who removed it is appalling. To do so for known trolls and banned users is unacceptable). ] 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:It is a good place to talk about Misplaced Pages freely if you aren't allowed to do so on-wiki, as in my case. The downside, obviously, is that certain people monitor your every word and look for something to use against you. ] 02:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Unfortunately your action &mdash; that is your words &mdash; have lost the trust that is necessary for working together, not to mention showing a lack of awareness of possible consequences. If there is a fault with wikipedia, and you can't talk about things that are necessary to talk about, then that should be addressed here, to improve the project. I think you're going to have to build up trust again. ] 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Almost every administrator who is outspoken or active in any way has lost the trust of a substantial portion of the community. My biggest offense was to offer to do something in ignorance, never mind my decision to not actually do it. ] 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::See, if you are that ignorant, you shouldn't be a sysop anyway, however I'm not really buying the ignorance defense. ] | ] 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Two and a half years and I seem to have done OK with sysop tools. When the worst thing a person can come up with is that you offered to do something that you in fact refrained from doing, it's almost a compliment. ] 02:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Dude we rely on admins being ignorant to get through the day. Aside form that admins are ignorant of all sorts of things. Copyright law. How to do range blocks how to use the whitelist. The fact there is a whitelist. How to close an AFD. What the exact CSD criteria are (they keep changeing for some reason). No admin knows everthing thing.] 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::If this was a reply to pschemp, pschemp's not a dude :) Anyways, admins are supposed to be rational in every decision they make. I don't really have a stance towards either side, but considering EveryKing has a prior history of blocks, I didn't surprise me that he was desysopped for something like this. How to close an AFD is one of the most basic admin activites. If an admin candidate doesn't know how to do that, I would be surprised if the RFA passed. Admins don't know how to do everything perfectly, but they should have a general idea of what to do in a situation. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 03:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I reserve the right to call anyone dude. In case you forget AFD in it's current form didn't exists when many of us were promoted.] 10:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	Bottom line: don't try to hunt with the hounds and run with the hare. ] 03:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Exactly. The defense that an action was performed in ignorance is hard to take seriously. Everyking was certainly not in ignorance of the fact that he was taking that action apparently on behalf of a community riddled with disruptive, destructive elements. It's impossible to believe that an individual of good judgment would blithely assume all was well with the request, considering the venue. ] ] 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::The people at thge other end could have had no idea what the deleted material was.If it was harmless then there was no need to allow uncertianly that could be used in attacks to continue
	I think wikipedia review isn't a good place to criticize wikipedia. There's criticizing to improve and just being anti-wikipedia and wikipedia review is sort of the later. They are really picky on registration and it seems they only allow in vandals and those that they want to corrupt (like wikipedia admins). I don't think it's wrong to complain about wikipedia, it's like complaining about your tap water quality or TV programming... you sort of need it, but you can always want it to be better. Maybe someone can host a wikipedia criticism forum that is more inline with wanting to help wikipedia. I don't want to, though. For those who do, there's lots of free forums like network54 and stuff. ] 06:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Right, well, when you have the arbs putting ten draconian restrictions on what you can say, you tend to relish the opportunity to talk about WP freely, even if you do have to do so among a bunch of people who are broadly anti-Misplaced Pages. ] 06:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Perhaps if you didn't have such a long history of bullying and personal abuse you wouldn't need the only wiki-restraining-order in the project's history to keep you from doing it. ] 07:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Rebecca, I'm glad Everyking is desysopped. He seemed to be the worst POV-pusher around at ]. I think he should be blocked for 1 year, in addition to his desysopping, as is the norm with such ArbCom block decisions. He's not the first - remember {{admin|Karmafist}} - now blocked indefinitely, but still sockpuppetteering. No doubt Everyking will do that here, and we'll have to use ((some template)) to list his sockpuppets. --] 09:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I've never even seen your user name before. ] 09:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I have a suspicion the Langwath is a troll user. Anyone object to blocking Langwath? ] ] 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Please go right ahead. A genuine newcomer doesn't jump straight into things like this. ] ] 10:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Um, well, I would kinda prefer it if he got a warning first. His talk page is still a red link. ] 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::. Appreciate your openness Everyking, but I don't think that this is a good faith contributor. Starting off by making a taunt against you at such a sensitive time is highly inappropriate and removes any vestige of ] I might have against Pelican Shit. ] ] 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Langweth is unblocked after posting an apology , but please keep an eye out for him. ] ] 10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Langwath is blocked again for being a lying vandalising troll. The cluster of sockpuppets I have so far are Langwath; Dukaks; StephenColbert X-Line; Piperuniverse; WolfStar2; WolfStar3. I have absolutely no doubt there are more. DHCP only covers you so far - ] 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	:This is ludicrous. I can see no point to engaging with Misplaced Pages Review. But there is no reason whatsoever to desysop people on this basis. There is no claim that any confidential, harmful or even just plain deleted information was disclosed. Whatever people might think of Everyking overall is irrelevant to this case. I strongly urge ArbCom to open a case on this and give the matter full consideration instead of what looks like a knee-jerk reaction. ] 11:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Bearing in mind that two ArbCom members are the ones who pushed forth the desysopping, an ArbCom case would be fairly pointless at this point except to satisfy process. Most probably Fred Bauder and Dmcdevit consulted with other ArbCom members secretly and obtained their approval. ] * ] 12:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Doubtful not if they were acting at that speed. 2 arbcom members is less than 20% of the Committee.] 12:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Even ArbCom members might benefit from a few days' reflection on the matter. ] 12:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I agree with The Land on this issue. ] ] 12:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I support this action, and gave my support in private before the action was taken. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::We're into denying admins the right to freedom of speech now too are we? This is getting beyond a joke. --] 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::What makes you think we ever had freedom of speech here? We routinely block users for harrassing and personally attacking other users. Free speech is a government censorship issue. Here on Misplaced Pages we do what is necessary to foster a productive editing environment, and someone trying to push the limits of "free speech" is liable to get blocked. And frankly, offering to abuse admin tools to aid a banned user is a lot worse than just a "fuck you" anyway. --] 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Exactly. This is the first time I have ever said this about the community here- I am disgusted. ]]]<small>]</small> 13:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I think the desysopping was an overreaction. What Everyking said was "I guess I could etc." and then, upon further consideration, he didn't. ] 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::The reason why Everyking didn't do it wasn't because he had reflected and decided not to, it was because he couldn't get to the material that he wanted to provide to WR. ]|] 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I don't even understand your accusation. Why couldn't I "get to the material"? ] 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	===Implications===
	Hummm, after reading this, I wonder what the long ranging implications of this will be, aside from the stern warning to the community in general. One important issue is that it is all a matter of timing. The information was available for some time, and in that time, it could have been cached by a webcrawler (google, answers, whatever), and be available permanetly outside Misplaced Pages. Or it could have been stored by a visitor and made publicly available (all allowed under GFDL). The conflict here is between the openness at one hand (everybody can at a specific time get all available information and store it off-wiki, regardless of libel, Copyvio, personal information etc), while at the otherhand desysopping for just offering to do the exact same thing. For me at the moment, that does not compute, and I would like to have some input on this from others on the timing aspect before making up my mind on whether the desysopping was good or not. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Maybe I have to set the question somewhat more pointed: ''If I had stored the information in question on my harddisk between being posted and being deleted and would now make it available externally, it would be ok under GFDL and I would not lose my sysop powers, while if I would use my sysop powers to retrieve the deleted version and make it available, I immediatly would lose my sysop powers?'' -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::], it is a matter of ] offering to use his admin tools to assist a banned user to gain access to information. Copyright status of the material is not the issue. ] 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::And since when has that been an offence, and an offence punishable by summary desysopping? --] 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Since when has it been an offense to assist a banned user with the use of administrative tools? Since when has murder been illegal? --] 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::depending on the legal system that is quite a complicated question. While you are deciding which legal system you mean you might want to consider why comparing everykings actions to murder is not an entirely logical course.] 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Ok, so the criteria is the usage of the admin tools. So, if this information is available, it is ok to post that somewhere else under the condition that it is not retrieved using admin tools. Good to know. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Appears to me that Everyking was acting as a surrogate for banned user ]. My dealings with WordBomb make me think that EK's actions need a full arbitration case. EK willingness to assist a banned user in general, and WordBomb in particular, needs to be addressed. Knowing what I know about WordBomb, this is broader in scope than EK's use of his admin tools. ] 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I am not familiar with the case in sufficient detail have an opinion about that. I am more interested in the implications, and especially when information added to wikipedia is under GFDL, and when the same information is not. Because what happens here is that information can be at the same time under GFDL and not, depending on how it was retrieved. That is a legal impossibility. Either it is under GFDL, or it is not. If it is under GFDL, I would think that people can actually request or sue the foundation for it if they want to have it, while we at the same time desysop people for doing the same thing. That just confuses me. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Nobody can require the foundation to provide any piece of information simply because it was edited into Misplaced Pages. The foundation can hardly be required to publish or distribute information to which it does not even hold the copyright simply because another individual has released it under the GFDL. (This ignores the fact that much personal information is not subject to copyright, and that therefore the GFDL has no bearing on its publication.) The Foundation would certainly exercise judgment in releasing deleted revisions. Everyking lost his sysop bit precisely because he appeared uninterested in demonstrating such judgment. ] ] 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	Sounds like few, if any, are sad to see Everyking lose the sysop tools. But, the excuse used for removing them was fairly sad. Maybe a generic "exhausting of ArbCom's patience" type reason should be used in cases like these. ] ] 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	Where is all this discussion heading? Everyking was emergency desysopped apparently because of a sworn desire to make deleted content available to non-admins. Whilst this is occasionally appropriate, it is most definitely not appropriate to post it to Misplaced Pages Review. However, Everyking has made clear above that he has no intention to make such content available to non-admins, and unless we doubt his word, why does he not have his sysop bit back? Emergency desysoppings are not permanent unless they get ratified by the ArbCom or under ], as far as I understand it. - ] 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I just want to point out that I had no "sworn desire", otherwise I would have posted it instead of choosing not to. ] 17:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Were you planning on posting the entire GFDL wording, as is required by GFDL, when you posted the deleted information on Misplaced Pages Review? Or did you not care about the copyright status of the information? ]|] 17:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I wasn't planning on doing anything, as you can see by the fact that I posted nothing. ] 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Presumably because the circumstances of the incident have brought his judgement into question to such an extent that the ArbCom feels his retaining the bit would be a liability to the project? I doubt this can be boiled down to a simple question of promising not to do someting in particular (e.g. not make deleted content available to non-admins); the broader issue is whether someone who considers—even fleetingly—using his sysop tools to help the nice folks at WR can be trusted with access to them. ] 17:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I frequently use my admin tools to help people.] 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Why were assisting an user banned from Misplaced Pages? WordBomb is not welcome on this site for a very good reason. You should assume good faith towards the admins that blocked WordBomb. WordBomb has openly expressed contempt for Misplaced Pages. There is no valid reason for your actions. Period. ] 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I didn't assist him; how could what I wrote have assisted him? And I don't determine whether I assume good faith just based on whether someone is an admin or is banned; I assume good faith at the outset as a general principle and withdraw the assumption if I see good reason to. ] 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Acting as a surrogate for WordBomb by looking at deleted information shows no respect for Misplaced Pages users and admins that are being harassed by WordBomb and sock/meatpuppets on an ongoing basis . ] 18:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This would be more meaningful if WordBomb had gained something from it. All he got was me saying I looked at it and couldn't determine anything about it. ] 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::: And it didn't occur to you to talk to the blocking admins at all? Do you realize what a lapse in judgement that is? You seem to be saying that you knew that the user had been indefinitely blocked by community consensus and you still assumed good faith without asking the other admins for any input? What about that doesn't strike you as wrong? ] 18:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I know that user is blocked, but not how that came to be. I guess I would have said something to SV about it if I was going to actually post it, considering my concern about her reaction was significant enough that I decided not to continue with the matter at all. At the time, however, my assumption was that the content had just been deleted as part of some crackdown against an individual, so I was less concerned; had I known the information was sensitive I would never have even suggested the possibility that I might post it. ] 18:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::sensitive information? Haven't been able to find any in there yet.] 18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::People here tell me there's sensitive personal info in there, but I still have no idea what it is; I'm just assuming they are correct about that. ] 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	I'm inclined to agree with Everyking on this matter. He should not have been punished just because he '''intended''' to give out confidential information, which he '''never''' actually did. --] 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Even "intended" is too strong; I put the offer on the table, thought about it, decided not to. ] 18:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	While I'm sure we're all glad that in the end Everyking decided to ''not'' start posting said information on WR, that fact that it was ever an option is disturbing. Admins are supposed to be trustworthy. If I started muttering on WR about providing the IP addresses of fellow sysops, I suspect I'd find myself desysoped, uncheckusered, and at the wrong end of an IP block for the forseeable future&ndash;and rightly so. From his recent post above, Everyking is displaying at best questionable judgement. You'd been a sysop for a long time&ndash;longer than I have. ''Why did you even have to think about it?'' ] ] 18:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:certianly. Because checkuser was provided on the understanding that you would never give out IPs. Admins frequently provide information about deleted articles.] 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::They do? to blocked users? Show me where. ] | ] 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::A couple of hours ago someone on IRC asked me to post the text of a page deleted by Dmcdevit. I did. For all I know the person I was talking to is a banned user on enwiki (though I think that's quite unlikely). This happens all the time. As long as the content is harmless it's fine. Everyking was in a dodgy forum and he implied he might post the contents of a page without reviewing it carefully first. That was a mistake. Then he decided not to do it and let the matter drop. That was the right call. ] 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Without knowing that the content was sensitive, it seemed just like any case of making the contents of a deleted page available to an interested party, and I'm not aware that's considered a problem. I thought people did that all the time. ] 21:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::While you may not have thought about whether or not the information was sensitive, ''you should have''. There is a difference between providing the contents of a deleted page to an editor (a vanity bio, promotional page, or some sort of facruft, say, that a newbie didn't realize was inappropriate for Misplaced Pages) and providing the contents of a deleted ''revision''. Deleting individual revisions from a page history is more effort and inconvenience than reverting an edit or deleting a page, and admins only tend to do it when there is a good reason for that extra effort. Straight vandalism gets reverted; revisions are only removed in special, exceptional circumstances.
	::When ''any'' editor asks for a copy of a deleted page ''revision'', it should prompt careful questions and investigation before releasing the material. When a banned sockpuppetting troll (WordBomb) asks for a deleted page revision &ndash; surely out of innocent curiosity and a sense of civic duty...''*cough*'' &ndash; that should trigger very loud alarm bells in the mind of an admin.
	::Before offering to release the information &ndash; before ''thinking'' about releasing the information &ndash; you might have asked the deleting admin why the revisions were deleted. That could have cleared things up nicely. Choosing not to release the information not out of respect for another admin's judgement, nor out of respect for the privacy of the involved individuals, nor because you didn't want to be used as a tool of some trolls...but rather because you were "''worried that SlimVirgin might get pissed''" does not inspire confidence in your ability to handle admin tools.
	::I've had run-ins with you before over your interactions with other editors, particularly other admins. I've been concerned about your occasional lack of civility. However, I've defended your contributions. I've never suggested that you should be desysopped; I have in fact argued against such suggestions in the past. Aside from a few regrettable mistakes during the Ashlee Simpson edit wars two years ago, I've never seen you misuse your admin privileges. But ''this'' is beyond the pale. If the only thing that stops you from handing out deleted page revisions to banned trolls bent on harrassing SlimVirgin and other admins is your fear that you'll piss off SlimVirgin, your judgement is no longer sound. I don't know whether it's because you're mad at Misplaced Pages, or mad at SlimVirgin, or mad at me (now, at least) or what&mdash;but this sort of offer shows a contempt for the Misplaced Pages community and for your Misplaced Pages colleagues. You've done a great deal of good here, but I just can't see how you can be trusted with admin privileges now. ](]) 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Out of all this, what you are really saying is that I should have consulted SlimVirgin ''before'' suggesting I might post the contents of the page. I have said that, in the unlikely instance that I chose to actually post the contents, I would have said something to her about it first&mdash;but this is not good enough for you, I need to consult her before I ''even make the suggestion''. At some point it begins to look like you're grasping at straws here. ] 06:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::You completely missed his point. The point is there is a huge difference between deleted revisions and an article that was just deleted for mundane reasons such as meeting the speedy criteria, AfD, etc. Deleted revisions require extra effort and are only done to keep that information away from non admins. The fact that you didn't even know what the information was you were offering to post is a problem, in addition to all the other problems people have noted here. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::TenOfAllTrades did you ever read the deleted edits?] 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	This reminds of a suggestion I brouhgt up a while ago- to have an open log of what admins accessed what deleted pages when. It might help deal with this sort of situation somewhat. ] 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:How could this have prevented anything? We'd find out that Everyking looked at the deleted content, a fact we already know. --]|] 20:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I think it would be useful to not hide non-sensitive deleted articles from non-administrators. Deleting articles because they don't fit editorially should be factored from deleting articles or revisions that have personal information etc. Almost all articles deleted via prod or AFD could be viewable by anyone. Then it would make sense to log viewing articles that truely need to be hidden. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>] 21:17Z</small></i></span>
	::Also stewards can truly delete sensitive edits now, of course. The problem I imagine is that many of those still remain unnoticed in the deleted articles tables. I wonder how many deleted articles we actually have?! --] 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::If we make deleted articles generally visible unless specifically set otherwise, we're going to have to use that setting a ''lot''. Huge chunks of our material is deleted because it's a copyright violation, and allowing that to be publicly visible defeats the entire point of deleting it, which is ''no longer to publish the material''... ] | ] | 21:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: There wouldn't be a default in either direction. There would be two possible actions, both equally easy to do: 1) hide from non-administrators and 2) editorial removal without hiding, similar to blanking a page, but makes it a redlink and otherwise appear as a non-article. There's no problem if either one of these two ends up being used more than the other. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>—] <sup>(])</sup> <small>2006-09-05 14:57Z</small></i></span>
	I believe it is fine for admins to give out a deleted article if it's been AFD'd as non-notable. Right? Even though in the instance where SlimVirgin deleted specific revisions those should have been kept secret. Right? ] 23:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Yup, it was clear that Slim Virgin had her reasons for deleting a quite specific revision. It was also clear that digging around to try to discover the content of that revision for the purpose of making it available to a banned user with an evident grudge against Misplaced Pages was something that a good colleague on the admin team would never even have thought of doing. When Everyking says he never actually did it, that's a relief. But he's still questioning (as of yesterday) whether there would have been anything wrong with it if he'd gone ahead. I can't trust him with the admin tools in those circumstances, no matter how good an editor he is otherwise. This is definitely not like userfying an article that was deleted because it was on a non-notable topic or userfying a userbox that did not belong in template space but had no particular tendency to disrupt the project or bring it into disrepute. We are expected to have good enough judgment to make such distinctions. ] 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Specific reason? The only thing I could find was stuff about a case settled out of court.] 00:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: Asking an admin for the contents of an article that was AFD'd as non-notable to put it on another website and the admin giving it is still acceptable, right? ] 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	I may not be an admin, but it seems that we all experience lapses in judgement from time to time. Everyking made an intemperate post -- it's all too easy to post first and think later when it comes to message boards. Lapses happen. A single, and in this case, harmless, lapse is not sufficient cause for a permanent desysopping, else we'd likely have no admins at all. I anticipate, at least, that an arbitration will be forthcoming to decide whether the desysopping is permanent? ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Not as far as I know. I believe they intended it to be permanent right from the beginning. ] 19:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	::As far as I '''''personally''''' am concerned, you have eroded all the trust placed in you by the community and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. There's no prohibition on you standing for RfA and I doubt the Committee would overrule community consensus were you to succeed, but I know I'd oppose. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Well, the tiny part of the community that is me still trusts you, James. You were always responsible and did a large amount of valuable work as an admin. I'll gladly renominate you for adminship any time you want. ] 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::The emergency desysopping was understandable, but is no longer necessary. I may disagree with some of his actions, but in this case, the thread doesn't show a deliberate attempt to abuse the sysop tools. He looked at the deleted revisions and commented on them. He did offer to post it, 'tis true, but if he had known it contained personal information, he wouldn't have done it. While the emergency desysopping might have been warranted because of the ''potential'' for dissemination of personal information, I'm sure this will serve as a lesson to be more careful when dealing with banned users, and as such, the emergency desysopping is no longer necessary. --] ] 15:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I agree with Deathphoenix here. But unless I've missed something, nobody was suggesting that this emergency desysopping was in fact temporary. ] ] 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::I'm aware that nobody suggest that this is a temporary desysopping, but I'm suggesting that it '''should be'''. --] ] 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I agree that it should be, but the way people get adminned or de-adminned seems to be changing quite rapidly in recent days. I think we at least deserve to know who's on the special list of people that get to make such decisions. ] ] 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::ArbCom and Jimbo. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	Well, Everyking is an excellent vandal fighter. I'd support a speedy restoration of his admin priviledges. --] 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Unless there's more to this issue than this one incident, I would agree. And if there ''is'' more to this issue than this one incident, then an ArbCom case needs to be opened if this "emergency" measure is to be permanent. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 19:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I also agree with Deathphoenix, and LtPowers. Any emergency desysopping should either be followed by resysopping after a suitable explanation (which is the case here in my opinion), or an ArbCom case to determine the appropriate long-term action. If the current situation continues, then Everyking has been punished without a trial. I realise that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but there does need to be some process here.-] 01:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:This is exceptionally stupid. Say I pick up someone's valid credit card and someone else asks me to give it to them. I tell that person "I'll think about it". Then I throw the credit card into a fire and nothing else comes of it. Do I get arrested for identity theft? ] 04:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::No, but if you were a police officer who offered to pass the credit card to a conman, you'd lose your job if caught, whether you actually went ahead and did it or not. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::In this case the offer isn't cause for dismissal. Everyking has stated that he didn't know there were personal details in the material. It's not like knowingly offering to hand over a credit card to somebody inappropriate - more like picking up an advertising flyer and offering it to an interested person. After all, most deleted articles are of that ilk and there is nothing controversial about their content. And as we find out from another comment, there may not actually be any personal information at all. I'm not an administrator, but I'm beginning to have grave doubts about the professional attitude on display here. Surely we should investigate the facts '''before''' acting? If there is a proven case, then apply an appropriate penalty. If there's nothing to it, then clear the suspect. --] 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Your analogy is wrong. He knew an admin had deleted a small number of edits, which strongly indicates it's personal information or defamation, as those are the most common reason for that kind of delete. But he offered to show the information to a bunch of trolls on an attack site anyway, some of whom have stalked people on-wiki and in real life. Whether he went ahead with it is irrelevant. He considered it, so he shouldn't be an admin. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	===Implications redux===
	This ] may be interesting reading. IANAL but I am not reading an obligation for us to make material (licensed by others under GFDL as all text content is here) available forever. GFDL infers redistribution rights (or imposes making material available for redistribution, subject only to reasonable charges for media and costs) but only if we ourselves are using it. If we're not using it (that is, if it's deleted) we don't HAVE to make it available to anyone, the seeker should go to the source. Availability is then up to the original author to determine. If that author chooses to make themselves anonymous or is a troll, and thus we are not quite sure who that is, it's sort of not our problem to help the seeker determine who it was. Therefore to the points said above, I'm not seeing a need to make deleted content available on request, in general, despite it being GFDL licensed. We're not. after all, still using it. We can do so if we choose to but we don't have to. Again IANAL and I may be all wet but I found that implication interesting. ++]: ]/] 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:There is no obligation to make available any GFDL content at all or for any length of time; only, if made available it must be able to be read or copied. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	===Personal information?===
	After looking at the deleted version (NO, I am not going to reveal its content), I actually question whether there is any personal information revealed in the post. I personally would have reverted the post as vandalism but not have deleted the revision. If this post is an example of revealing personal information, a hell of a lot of revisions should be deleted from various other articles as well. So, could some admins shime in on this? without revealing anything of the content. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I don't want to know what the information was. It's good enough for me that Slim Virgin, a colleague in good standing, thought it necessary to delete certain quite specific revisions of the article. I then see a banned user who has an obvious grudge against Misplaced Pages trying to get hold of it in a way that shows he is hoping to use the information for some purpose such as undermining Misplaced Pages or Slim Virgin, or both. I then see an admin hanging around on an anti-Misplaced Pages attack site openly talking to the banned user about using his admin powers to dig out the information for the banned user's benefit, and evidently seeing nothing wrong with this.
	:Folks, this is far worse than a bit of wheel warring (for example). I don't care that Everyking did not actually go through with it - the way he openly discussed doing so, refrained only because he was afraid Slim Virgin would be "pissed off", rather than because it would be undermining collegiality, and was still suggesting after being desysopped that there was nothing wrong with what he was offering to do all add up to this: Everyking is not someone I trust with admin powers. Given his judgments in this instance, I don't know what he would do next to undermine people whom he is supposed to be supporting. We can't afford to leave admin powers in the hands of people who have lost our trust. End of story. ] 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::So far as I can tell, the information has been deleted entirely so that it's not visible to admins, so I don't know what it is KimvdLinde thinks she's reading. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I saved a copy of the revision to my harddisk before it was oversighted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::First, can I ask why you did that? And secondly, if you did, why can't you see why it was removed? It was personal information (alleged, but not known, to be correct). ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::If you want a detailed discussion here about the content, that is fine with me, but I think that would exactly opposite of what you tried to achieve in the first place. I dispute your assessment of the post and that if you want an answer, I would have to make statements that I rather do not see here, knowing the apparent sensitivity of the deleted revision. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	===My take===
	Everyking said he was going to repost deleted content, a common occurrence. He didn't repost deleted content. Said deleted content included personal information. Everyking didn't know this (unless he's lying about that). Everyking didn't actually do much of anything, and yet was punished as if he was a convicted felon. ] (]) 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	===Validating Misplaced Pages Review===
	Reading through this thread, I am somewhat shocked a sysop is being punished for association with a forum that WP is highly critical of, claiming the forum is not a place for constructive criticism, but a place for trolls, which is a way of dismissing the forum as a whole. However, demanding no admin be part of the forum is to give the forum de-facto validation, saying they indeed got something right, when WP should instead say WPR is of no concenquence. Also, I am surprised over the protectionism over deleted information. It is as if Misplaced Pages suddenly laid claim to the information that was offered by the admin, reasoning the posting of the information is a betrayal of another admin. However, this fundamentally contradicts the copyright-less nature of Misplaced Pages. The texts, even when deleted is not owned by either Misplaced Pages or the Admin who deleted the information.
	This desysop is not based on factual concerns, but it is a witch hunt, which Everyking has been unfortunately targeted.--]] <sup>]</span>|<span style="color:gold">]</span>]</sup> 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:These are very sensible points. -- ] | ] 19:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: No they aren't. The above ignores the nature of the information in question and the nature of the person who was asking for it. The notion that it is somehow a bad thing to not release personal info to banned users is simply absurd. To claim that this has something to do with the nature of the copyright on the information shows such a basic misunderstanding of the GFDL that I don't evene know where to begin. While it is true that admins have a right to edit on Misplaced Pages Review it is accurate that it is by and large full of unproductive trolls and banned editors and that such editing will be rarely productive. ] 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Would you please expand on your claims? Such as how I have misunderstood the nature of Misplaced Pages? What personal information? How personal was that information? --]] <sup>]</span>|<span style="color:gold">]</span>]</sup> 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I haven't looked at the edit in question, but how personal isn't relevant. That it was personal and that the ArbCom thought it was personal is what matters. The fundamental misunderstanding concerns the assertion that Misplaced Pages is "copyright-less" This is both wrong and irrelevant. It is wrong because there is a GFDL and it is irrelevant because the issue here had nothing to do with whether or not the info was copyrighted the problem was the idea of retrieval of deleted personal content and giving that deleted personal info to a banned user. ] 04:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::To answer briefly the last three: Who knows, since it wasn't what was actually claimed ("GFDL" =/= "Misplaced Pages"); the probable personal informaton in the deleted revision; and completely irrelevent. --] | ] 00:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	Just to clarify the GFDL thing: GFDL requirements only come into play when something is being redistributed. If we've ''deleted'' something from Misplaced Pages we have no obligation to release that material to anyone. Now, if some current version of an article is based on a previous version that has been deleted then that ''is'' a problem, because attribution information has been removed. However, what we are talking about here is some random personal information that was deleted, so any GFDL concerns are irrelevant. There's this misconception out there that the GFDL requires that every single edit to Misplaced Pages be available when this is simply not the case; only the edits on pages that are ''published'' must be available. --] 05:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Just to clarify, once the information is on an article, it is legally published, and once someone distributes it, that version is no longer in your hands, and once it is deleted from wikipedia, the versions in the wild do not get deleted either. And GFDL is a copyleft, not a copyright.(added later) Still though, no one has cared to address how Misplaced Pages owns the information that was deleted or how the GFDL gives any rights to Misplaced Pages to decide who can or cannot publish previously deleted content. Still though, no one has addressed why no admin may be part of this forum without being attacked by peers when the forum in question is disputed in validity, which is the same as to question if anything the forum says should be taken seriously, which is the same as saying what ever happens on that forum does not matter, which means Misplaced Pages should concern itself with only the information it currently is displaying and not with the information others are displaying. I also question the validity of the argument that the users who recieved this information were banned and therefor were ineligable for possession of any wiki information, or atleast ineligable of possession of information from a sysops or should be barred from association with sysops. --]] <sup>]</span>|<span style="color:gold">]</span>]</sup> 08:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, under the GFDL he may. That's beside the point. The point is that he may not use his Misplaced Pages administrator privileges to do so. Everyking could not have acted in contravention of the GFDL (presuming he credited the authors), but he would have abused his administrative privileges. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::But then we return to the freedom of association and validating WPR issues. Also, I never have seen clear rules as to what one may or may not do in this regard, so unless there are rules that predate Everykings actions, he has not abused his powers, but brought up a new issue that should be addressed. So far though, addressing the issue has been limited to making an example of Everyking. --]] <sup>]</span>|<span style="color:gold">]</span>]</sup> 10:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::There are no clear rules because we have made no clear rules. We have made no clear rules because doing so would make it easy to circumvent them. The rules are to apply common sense and discretion. Yes, that's vague. But if someone can't manage to follow them, that person should not be a Misplaced Pages sysop. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::(Edit Conflict) Part of being an Admin is using one's own judgement. Now for me, going onto a wikipedia attack forum, and offering to give deleted content, which contained personal information, to a banned user without even contacting the deleting admin, and then, to top it all off, state that the reason he didn't post the content was because he might piss off SlimVirgin, is a gross lack of judgement. I've seen a lot of words like witch hunt, and making an example of Everyking, but the truth is that he has lost the trust of the community. Simple as that. As far as validating WPR, well, I disagree with you on that point. Again, what's important here is judgement. Going onto WPR, and mixing with banned users, wiki-haters, and a general bunch of trolls is likely to have some of the community, some of them being constantly attacked by WPR, wonder why Everyking would want to be there in the first place. However, I think that Everyking's de-sysoping comes down to this: It is debatable if he abused his powers, but he has abused the trust of the community with his actions. ]]] <sup>]</sup> 10:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	But again, there is an allussion of ownership to the text. As for mingling with banned users, why do you feel you have the right to control who your peers can mingle with? As for the trust of the community, I cannot care less about what Everyking does on WPR, as long as his actions ''on'' Misplaced Pages are fair and reasonable to other users of Misplaced Pages and helps improve Misplaced Pages. Everyking has done nothing to destroy my trust of him and my trust for him is just as important as your trust for him.
	Also, I question the wisdom of 'super users', users who are a little more than all other editors, making the foggy rules of trust. The everyday editors of Misplaced Pages need to trust you, the sysops, more than you need to trust each other and without our input, editors can feel invalidated personally at times and come to feel distrust. A picture as an example would be an overlord commanding the underlings. --]] <sup>]</span>|<span style="color:gold">]</span>]</sup> 12:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Hmmm...a very interesting reply to say the least. I wasn't aware that I ever said that your trust for Everyking was less important than mine. As you can see from my edit summery, this is just my humble opinion of the situation. I'm sorry if you feel it is something more. As far as ''"...why do you feel you have the right to control who your peers can mingle with?"'' is concerned, again, I never wrote that Everyking's movements or who he talks to on the internet should be restricted. He makes a choice of who he talks to. However, that choice has a consequence. I believe that one of the Admin's duties are as to act as ambassadors of Misplaced Pages, and, as such, I hold them in higher reard when interacting with Wikipedians, and talking about Misplaced Pages elsewhere. As for "Super user", well, I don't think that they do make foggy rules of trust. Everyone's idea of trust is different, yours from mine, mine from Tony Sidaway's, Tony's from Everyking's etc. However, it is my firm opinion that Everyking, with his actions, has lost the trust of at least part of the community. ]]] <sup>]</sup> 13:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Maybe I should make clear who I am addressing. I am addressing multiple users, all of whom support the removal of Everyking as a sysop, and at the same time, no users. As such, I will address arguments individually as if they created and argued for themselves instead of addressing users. I, in this method, avoid offending people without intention. The exception is when I ask people to expand on their own arguments.
	::Our differing ideas of trust is exactly why mods, admins, sysops, crats and so on, should not define what trust is. However, at the very top of this thread, it was declared by a single entity that Misplaced Pages has lost trust for this user. --]] <sup>]</span>|<span style="color:gold">]</span>]</sup> 13:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	==] on article ] ==
	This editor keeps obstgruction the development of this article. His latest attempt is to claim that google scholar cannot be used as a reference , thus he is is blanking out this paragraph from the impact section :
	Hagarims is widely cited by many contemporary historiographers and historians of early Islam, such as: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],], ] and ]..
	--] 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	:A search link is not an appropriate reference. I think if you look at the history of the article you'll find that CltFn continues to remove as many cited criticisms as possible, and insert his original research (sometimes trying to weaken the criticisms) often with quite misleading edit summaries used for reverts. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Here are some diffs supporting my claim: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
	::Read the talk page (and its archive) for background. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	It has been established that CltFn has used ] to influence the development of this article. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Non-working site as reliable source? ==
	Regarding ], if a site is the only primary source for an information, and the site is no longer active, does Google's cache count as an acceptable reference? Note that the article in question doesn't have any other primary sources (only some web based forums/blogs, which in turn refers to the no-longer-existing site as their source), and the site that is supposedly the all-encompassing source is no longer active. So, in absence of any other primary sources of information, does google's cache count as proof of verifiability of the information presented? --] 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	:If I was able to use the WayBack machine for some articles, then a Google Cache should be good too. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: Google cache expires rather quickly. Wayback is commonly used and safer in this regard. ] 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: I agree with Pavel, but I could see it being moderately useful as an interim source if it's already available, while a search of WayBack happens. ] <font color="Red"><sub><small>( ]</small></sub></font> <font color="Green"><sub><small>]</small></sub></font> <font color="Blue"><sub><small>] )</small></sub></font> 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	This page was deleted without discussion, so I nominated its deletion for review. The result was that the speedy deletion was overturned (see , but the page has not yet been restored. Could an admin please do so?--] 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I redeleted it. ]. ''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I really don't think ANOTHER speedy is going to help anything. When something was just undeleted by the DRV to be run through an XfD, re-speedying it is a violation of consensus that it go through full process. Please undelete, and reopen the discussion for the sake of process. --] 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I quickened it up as there was an overwhelming consensus to delete. It wasn't a full-speedy, it was a part-speedy as the conclusion is foregone conclusion to expedite ] ASAP. If you disagree, please come to my talk page.''']''' <nowiki>|</nowiki> ] 00:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Remember, my offer to have is still open, so the ball is in yall's court to see if this is a good idea or not. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	: That MfD had a thumping consensus for delete and has been closed ''twice'' per the ] and ]. Please let's just allow it to die. No amount of wikilaawyering and handwringing will do anything to bring it back. --] 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Interestingly (or not, depending on your perspective), neither of thsoe are actionable as actual, legitimate reasons to do anything. --] <small>]</small> 01:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::The fact of their being cited continuously to justify actions such as Tony's (and some actions with which you might even agree, such as closing failing RFAs to prevent unnecessary ill will) seems to contradict this assertion. &mdash; ] | ] 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	'''Comment''' - I've yet to hear anyone who has supported this page's deletion explain how it glorifies vandalism any more than the rest of BJAODN, and, therefore, why it was singled out.--] 02:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Reply''' Neither have I, and ''if a certain out-of-process admin would bother to stop enforcing proposed policies as CSD's'', maybe we could actually discuss it. However, the fact remains that the page sucks, and bizzare is an absurdly POV judgment for categorization in the first place. --] 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' - You thinking the page sucks is not reason for deletion.--] 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Maybe he used the wrong wording, but the fact remains that the page was a breeding ground for vandalism and "bizarre" username creations to get it placed on the page. No reason to restore this page. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 21:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::All of BJAODN can be seen as a breeding ground for vandalism and the creation of "bad jokes" and "other deleted nonsense" to get placed in it. If you find that to be a problem, then consider discussing the possibility of having the entire BJAODN deleted, but still no legitimate reason has been given for singling this page out.--] 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Personally I do believe BJAODN does need to be deleted per the reason this page was deleted. This page was more than likely singled out because it wasn't on BJAODN. And it doesn't need to be, nor do we need vandalism sub-pages. ] works just as well. We shouldn't be encouraging stupidity. Were here to create a encyclopedia, not give vandalism and literally ''bad jokes and other deleted nonsense'' a place for viewieng. If it's deleted nonsense, it needs to stay that way. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 23:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I give up; I won't have it moved to my userpage. I am no way emotionally attached to that page at all, was trying to see if that was a happy medium people might like. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	: If no one objects, I wouldn't mind it in my user space if that is an acceptable compromise. I do however think that speedy deletion of this page was unwise and it isn't even clear to me if it even falls undery DENY anyways. I would however like it if users would stop focusing on the details of possibly questionable speedies and just get back to the article space(and this applies to those who feel a need to speedy so much as well). ] 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: In fact, while I'm commenting: Speedy out of process deletions make sense when a page is producing divisions and distractions from editing the encyclopedia. If a discussion is otherwise more or less civil and is not actively disrupting the wiki such deletions are not helpful and will often harm more than help. That said, users who focus on out of process procedures, especially to defend non-encyclopedic material are being just as disruptive and unproductive as the admins who go out of their way to delete such material in out of process fashions. We should not forget that we are trying to write an encyclopedia. ] 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: Joshua: You are the wind beneath my wings. ] 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:You make a good point: as far as I can tell, this does not glorify vandalism any more than the rest of BJAODN, which should be deleted for the same reasons as this page has been. &mdash; ] | ] 04:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::] was simply a list of usernames, very few of which were creative or funny (even knock-knock jokes take up more space than one of the bizarre userames). BJAODN, on the other hand, actually require some amount of creativity sometimes, they're not necessarily just your garden-variety ] or ]. --] 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::But you're forgetting about "IwanttobeapagemovevandalwhenIgrowup...on wheels!", "In Soviet Russia, me block you!", and "I'm begging you to unblock me! How can I face my family!".--] 21:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	==]==
	I've blocked this chap because he seems to have taken a bee in his bonnet about {{admin|drini}} to the point of campaigning for the removal of his sysop bit. talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Is calling for the de-sysopping of an admin now a blockable offense? I don't think so. --] 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: There are disruptive ways of doing it. Kelly Martin has informed me that she has discovered that the troll in question was an abusive sock master, and I understand that other administrators have blocked the socks she detected. See the notices on ShortJason's user page for more information. --] 01:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Try reading ] before jerking the ol' knee. --] | ] 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I read that, and have seen those diffs before. Apart from this whole Checkuser deal, nothing ShortJason said merited a block. Describing an admin's actions as "wholly inappropriate" and calling for his removal should ''never'' result in a block, and it is a frightening precedent to set. --] 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::: We have a ] policy. Not having sysop access, and not having read up on this fellow's history, places you at a disadvantage. You cannot see all of the actions that editor took during his mercifully brief and unlamented campaign against Drini. --] 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Well can you at least tell me what he did, or is that a sysop-secret? --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 02:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::''I read that, and have seen those diffs before''. So your rhetorical question ("Is calling for the de-sysopping of an admin now a blockable offense?") was ''knowingly'' false, then? --] | ] 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Knowingly true. The diffs show ShortJason calling for the de-sysopping of Drini. The worst he says is that Drini is a "bad admin". I do not consider this a blockable offense. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::It is most likey the method that the user used was the reason why he was blocked by Tony. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: Actually just the demeanor and circumstances. Something about it wasn't right. I blocked and brought it here for review. Immediately afterwards someone investigated and discovered a whole slew of socks. I guess this was what is sometimes known as "copper's nose". I regret that I clean forgot to read him his miranda rights. --] 05:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::: You really think of yourself as a "cop", huh? -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::This line of discussion is unlikely to lead to any useful result. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 23:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Fair enough. I was just struck by the oddness of it. For what it's worth, I support the block. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	A very appropriate block. Nscheffey, this was the same user that made an attack userbox against Drini, that has since been deleted. Agree that his behaviour is akin to trolling, and I'm not surprised by the discovery of the socks -- ] 05:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I do not agree that making a Userbox advocating recall of an admin is enough of a personal attack to merit an indefinite block. I think it is a dumb idea that won't advance one's goals, and I agree that such a Userbox should be deleted, but I don't see anything in ] that implies it should result in an indefinite block. I also don't think it is befitting of an admin to inform an editor, with many constructive edits to the encyclopedia, that they are blocked indefinitely in . As to the allegations of sockpuppetry, of which I have seen no evidence, "block first, find reasons later" is not an acceptable policy, nor do I think editors should be blocked for setting off someone's spidey-senses. --] 06:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: I do agree with Nscheffey that the attack ''probably'' didn't merit an indefinite block. That's why I brought it here saying: "Please review and fix block, block duration, etc, appropriately." I felt that he was certainly up to no good but wasn't sure ''how'' grave a matter it was. Events developed from there. Judgement of whether someone is simply expressing concern or is actively seeking to disrupt Misplaced Pages is typically something an administrator does, although of course we make a point of reviewing one another's actions. --] 06:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	AFAIK, he wasn't campaigning for my sysop removal, but for my removal (from wikipedia), as he never qualified his statement in a precise way. Still, he's the same user as Orange Rocks and TJWhite, both usernames being abusive sockpuppets (among many) and therefore he has been indefblocked, using a newaccount to circunvent blocking is a no-no. -- <small> ]</small> 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	I heartily endorse this event or product. ] ] 23:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/Aiko,_Princess_Toshi ==
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Aiko,_Princess_Toshi
	This page has been clearly vandalised with an inappropriate graphic.
	:It's gone now. I looked, saw it, checked the page history, couldn't find the addition... went back to the page and it was gone. Peculiar. --] (]) 15:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::An IP from the University of Maryland vandalized ]. I would dearly like for someone to have a chat with their ITS department. ] 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Oh really? This is convenient. I happen to go to the University of Maryland. Deliver me a list of vandalizing edits from UMD IPs on my talk page and I will forward them to a guy I know in OIT. --] 18:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::So I contacted OIT and it turns out that the vandalism came from publicly accessible terminals that do not require logins. The kind of vandalism from these IPs (insertion of penises into high-visibility templates) is indicative of an experienced, vicious vandal. I'm just kind of surprised that someone went to all of the trouble to logon from three different terminals in the library at my university just to vandalize. --] 05:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] (] • ])==
	I'm curious what others make of this new user, particuarly his ] and ]. Am I being paranoid or is it a little off? ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:That's patently a troll. Indef blocked and deleted. Goodnight. --] 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Wasn't sure why it looked trollish until I saw the user page history. Is it just me, or are editors with "wiki" in their usernames disproportionately problematic? ] ] 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::hello, I am The Wiki Fan. First of all I am a girl not a boy, and secondly why am I banned? Thirdly, what is with the weird message I got about right guard? ] 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (The Wiki Fan)
	:::Aye right, and you just happened to find this page - troll begone! (blocked) --] 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I looked at your contributions - if this page is a secret sorry but it's not very secret LOL ] 21:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (The Wiki Fan)
	:::::Aye right! A newbie who knows to lookup contributions! -- <small> ]</small> 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::I've already done an English (and maths!) GCSE (I know you don't have them in Scotland, but I think they're the same here), and I'm sorry for having the brains to work stuff out, and anyway I've been lurking here for a while. But if you don't believe me, fine, screw you guys, I've tried talking nicely and I guess I'll have to tell my friends and teachers not to bother with wikipedia in the future. If you won't let me edit for stupid reaosns then it's more your loss than mine, I already know the facts I can add to articles, wikipedia doesn't. ] 23:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	I noticed this story as it was posted on another website. It said to see the edit summary so I looked over many contributions. I can't see any contributions other than making the right guard deorderant add so I don't know what they did in the deleted pages. However, Canderson7 handled the unblock horribly. He is supposed to make it unblock reviewed and give a reason. Instead he gave no reason and blanked the notice, only even saying denied in the edit summary. Then The Wiki Fan not knowing Canderson was an admin and not say a vandal (the handling did look like it wasn't an admin to me), put it back , Canderson blanked it again and actually bothered to say in the talk it was denied while committing the horrid crime of protecting the talk page without good reason. . ] 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:What is this? Be nice to trolls week? Give me a break. --] 10:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Anomo, I'm always open to criticism of my actions, but I believe my handling of the unblock template was fully justified. There's no reason to tolerate a troll after they've been blocked, and The Wiki Fan was clearly trolling. However, there's no way to really understand that without looking at Wiki Fan's deleted contributions. I'm curious what site you read the story on. ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: The site I found it on is not a liked site and I don't want to associate myself with it by naming it. But I'm objecting to the use of the unblock template. It looks like its first edit or two was to make on article on the real name of Linuxbeak, so it should have <nowiki>{{unblockreviewed|</nowiki> as something like "single purpose account, account exists for harassment/trolling, see deleted edits" and not just the notice blanked. It just looked like unfamiliarity with the unblock template. It is evolving all the time. Recently, I saw it has "NO REASON GIVEN." I didn't realize that could be done with wiki code and the whole thing of <nowiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki> being blank doing that is just lovely skilled code! So I'm just saying I think some text should have been written on the talk page as documentation, that's all. ] 13:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::My goal at the time was to feed the trolls as little as possible. As for that site, I encourage you not to take anything you read on it at face value. I always welcome feedback; I'll keep your opinion in mind. ] <sup>(])</sup> 13:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Automating identification of 3RR violations? ==
	This may be a bit of a long shot but I thought I'd ask... I need to go through the edit history of a page to identify 3RR violations for an arbitration case. Unfortunately it's an extensive and complex edit history involving multiple editors. Is there any way of automating things so that I can automatically identify instances where an editor has reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours? Is there perhaps some sort of script that would do the job? Any advice or pointers would be much appreciated. -- ] 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Wouldn't that have horrible risks of accidently blocking people for 3RR who were reverting vandals? --] 23:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	::No, since it would merely ''identify'' who had done 3> reverts. No blocking is involved - all I'm after is data for an arbitration case. I'm only interested in edits performed by those involved in the case. -- ] 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	: Just set the history to grab a large page size worth of edits and process them with a suitable perlscript. Shouldn't take much more than half an hour to write. --] 23:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
	It's not worth the hassle; just say that they were edit-warring. If they were obviously edit-warring, you don't need to just look through their contributions for the arbitrary 4 reverts in 24 hours violations. The ArbCom understands this. --] 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] / ] ==
	I'm not really sure what to do about this, but we have a user (with what appears to be a number of sockpuppets that have followed an almost identical editing pattern) whose sole purpose has been to revert the ] article every few days (or sometimes multiple to their preferred version. Mediation was called in, but Tatsuma has refused to participate, and as a result, nothing came of that. An RfC was filed but nothing came of that either. There was a Mediation Cabal case filed back in July, too, . I don't know if a block is called for in this case, but it's really getting tiresome. What can be done? Thanks. <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-size:larger;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> ] ]</span> 02:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I know this guy from Fark (though I haven't had a lot of discussions with him). He's usually an exceptionally reasonable guy; I really don't think this is anything malicious at all. I have his email address and am sending him an email, asking him what's going on and explaining the consternation his edits are causing. Tatsuma could be a really helpful and knowledgeable editor (particularly on articles related to Israel); I think he just doesn't know about the talk page. If he has to be blocked he has to be blocked, of course, but I really think this is a matter of ignorance about Misplaced Pages policies more than anything. ] * ] 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::As I posted in the RfC, this account's sole purpose is to 1) tendentiously edit Ars Technica and 2) impersonate a member of another community. Recommend a block (ideally in a way that frees up the username so a responsible person can take the name). ] * ] 12:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Following ] about personal attacks on ], ] was blocked for a week. There has been ongoing abuse by this user directed at ] for months - amongst other things, the allegations are that SandyGeorgia is stalking Zeraeph (in real life as well as on Misplaced Pages), using sockpuppets, and conspiring with administrators. There have been three mediation attempts, a request for checkuser which showed that the alleged sockpuppets were unconnected to SandyGeorgia, and frequent complaints to AN/I. Nobody who has looked at Zeraeph's allegations has come to the conclusion that there is any evidence for them at all, or that SandyGeorgia has done anything to provoke this. I've just extended Zeraeph's block to a month, because she was using her talk page to repeat the allegations despite being warned (by myself and ] who reviewed the initial block) that her only option now was to open an arbitration case or stop the abuse. Does anyone have any objections to a community ban? Zeraeph's are instructive. --] (]) 10:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	: i don't know how to say this politely, so I'll just say it. It's clear that editing Misplaced Pages is interacting poorly with, and perhaps aggravating, the particular issues this person has. A number of the things she or he says (particularly about being stalked for years by Misplaced Pages users, conspiracies reaching back into the past, multiple unrelated people out to "get" her) are classic symptoms of various problems that are very, very serious. Obviously, I don't think Zeraeph's editing is good for Misplaced Pages, but there's a more important issue. While normally I would say that this is the sort of thing that should go through Arbcom, I do not believe that any sort of formal proceeding involving a panel of strangers evaluating her behavior that will drag on for weeks and weeks is going to be healthy for this person. I think the most merciful thing we could do is to shut her down, and do it firmly and quickly.
	: For what it's worth, I feel that way about ], too, although less strongly. ] 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: The incoherence of the allegations and the inability to come up with even the slightest evidence for their reality is also typical. I've had to deal with this sort of thing in real life, and you're right about the best way to deal with it. --] (]) 12:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::In addition to the point made by Nandesuka, the user's threatening comments are extremely serious and support this approach. ] 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	I've been dealing with Zeraeph on a more personal level, through email after an unblock request sent to the Unblock mailing list (for the record, I advised Zeraeph to take the block as an enforced Wikibreak and to be calm when the block is over). When conversing with me, Zeraeph has alternated between being quite calm and being very frustrated with the situation. I know that Zeraeph can be very calm and reasonable when approached the right way, and I also feel that Zeraeph very honestly feels that he (or she?) is being stalked online, off-Wiki as well as on. I think if I can look at what Zeraeph can present to me, I can either provide advice on actions to take, or possibly log an RfAR on Zeraeph's behalf if the information is valid.
	As such, I'd like to volunteer to be a ] (this would be my first time as a mentor), even during the block. I don't think a community ban is the answer. If you feel that Zeraeph will only cause more trouble in his talk page, the solution may be to protect the talk page so he can continue to converse with me. I don't think Zeraeph is ill-intentioned, but rather, feels that he has a valid complaint. I hope that if I can bring this off-wiki, and in private, we can deal with the situation without rubbing too many Wikipedians the wrong way. --] ] 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I have no objections to your trying. You should also contact SandyGeorgia privately; apparently she has been receiving unwanted e-mails regarding Zeraeph, and suspects that {{user|A Kiwi}} is involved (see ], particularly the talk page). It could be (and this is pure speculation) that Zeraeph ''is'' being stalked online, but not by SandyGeorgia. My personal opinion is that this is going to be too complicated to achieve a workable on-wiki solution. Godspeed. ] 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, your speculation had occurred to me too. For now, I don't think I need to be contacting SandyGeorgia via email just yet. I am open to on-Wiki communication if necessary. I don't want Zeraeph to feel like I am any part of this conspiracy, and for now I am just communicating one-on-one with Zeraeph. Currently, Zeraeph is being calm and reasonable with me (though clearly frustrated with the situation), and that may change if he thinks I'm carrying on any conversations with SandyGeorgia behind is back. I would like to wait until Zeraeph presents valid evidence that it is indeed SandyGeorgia that is doing the stalking. I can promise that I will keep an open mind, examine the evidence clearly, and not do anything rash or without thought. --] ] 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::(edit conflict) :Last month, a situation arose that should have been addressed discreetly by senior administrators and with a minimum of public discussion. Instead, it became the topic of extensive discussion on-Wiki that caused egregious harm to vulnerable editors. Although the specifics here are different, this is an extremely serious situation involving allegations of an 8-year history of stalking, legal threats, potentially delusional scenarios, and psychological issues as mentioned by Nandesuka. I strongly believe in transparency on-Wiki, but there are limits. An RfAr under these circumstances would be a horror show and should not be suggested again. We need to be able to identify and deal with the(''rare'') sensitive situations like this that need to be investigated and resolved in a highly sensitive and confidential fashion. ] 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: I agree with Nandesuka and Newyorkbrad. Zeraeph has been asked several times as part of mediation processes to put forward a coherent, evidence-based statement about what she thinks is going on. All that comes out is the typical conspiracy theory reasoning - the absence of evidence for the conspiracy is firm proof that the conspiracy is real and working well, there are special secret things going on that the "victim" can't explain (for reasons which themselves can't be explained), things are so obvious that a request for evidence is proof of the inquirer having underhand motives for asking the question, and so on. ] is typical. I don't think Zeraeph is ill-intentioned, I think she is (literally) deluded. In any case, the abuse of SandyGeorgia has to stop, and on present form an arbitration case would just be used as a platform for further abuse, and would do Zeraeph no good at all. --] (]) 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: Zeraeph's talk page has been protected since this morning, by the way, because she was using it to continue the behaviour for which she had been blocked. --] (]) 15:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::That's why I want to bring this discussion off-Wiki, so it doesn't hurt established Wikipedians. If I act as a filter, you can be sure that anything I present is, in my opinion, valid. I won't present anything that I don't think is valid. Right now, I have some pretty good dialog with Zeraeph. If I can keep this up, maybe Zeraeph and I can discuss this calmly. I would like for Zeraeph to eventually contribute positively to Misplaced Pages, but I also don't want for this situation to cause undue stress to Wikipedians. That's why I feel carrying on private dialog with Zeraeph without the threat of a community permaban (just the current temporary block) is best. --] ] 16:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::: If you think things have got to the stage where Zeraeph is willing to use ] appropriately, feel free to unprotect it. I wouldn't be at all happy with an unblock unless there is an arbitration case which has gone "live". --] (]) 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::No, for now I think it's in Zeraeph's best interests to leave the talk page protected for now. I don't want Zeraeph to get into a situation where he (or she) will get blocked for even longer. I'm not advocating an unblock yet (indeed, when Zeraeph submitted an unblock request to the mailing list, I suggested that he take this block as an enforced Wikibreak): I'm only opposing the community ban (which is an indefinite block) as proposed here. I don't think a community bad is the answer here. --] ] 16:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: ''It could be (and this is pure speculation) that Zeraeph is being stalked online, but not by SandyGeorgia.'' I believe this to be true, based on the emails I have, but apparently it "takes two to tango": she has been stalked and has allegedly been a stalker as well. (Witness the threats against me: that she is going to have authorities deal with me in real life.) I'm not convinced that any amount of conversation or mentoring will be able to convince Zeraeph that I am not the stalker, because that person has an AOL account, and I have an AOL account which I use when I am in a hotel that doesn't have another internet connection. I appreciate your efforts, but I believe the other editors have valid points about dragging this out in public considering the issues involved: I, too, have encountered situations like this and have always believed that disengaging is the only way to handle them. I understand your concerns about contacting me privately in order to preserve your role as a mentor, but someone needs to look at these e-mails, and then deal with the AOL editors who appeared in the midst of this mess, complicating it even further. I have repeatedly encouraged those people to keep the off-Wiki situation off Wiki, to no avail. I am fairly certain at this point that the only person who is going to be damaged by all of this is me: yes, the edit history is instructive (and I'm having a lovely vacation :-). It also needs to be understood that Zeraeph's attacks on me began long before she thought I was "her stalker" and before I received the emails (the person emailed me to supposedly support me because of Zeraeph's attacks), so using that now as the rationalization for her behavior doesn't hold water. Best of luck to you, ] 16:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Hmmm... okay, if you feel that I should look at this emails, send me an email at ]. I'm keeping an open mind and assuming good faith, on both sides. --] ] 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::: With all due respect, someone else needs to look at them. While I understand and accept that you have an open mind and are assuming good faith, and I applaud your effort, the reality is that you don't see this as clearly as ajn, Nandesuka, many others and I do, and your role right now is as Zeraeph's advocate and mentor. First, I believe strongly in guarding the privacy of e-mail, and wouldn't want the information in these e-mails to fall into Zeraeph's hands, even unwittingly. Second, your relationship with her as a mentor is likely to be compromised if she knows you have corresponded with me: she has expressed several times that she is convinced that I can manipulate admins. Third, if the person who sent me the e-mails holds me responsible for the information falling into Zeraeph's hands, I am likely to have not one online problem out of this mess, but multiple. In short, I am the one at risk here, having done nothing to warrant this, and I need for an admin who is not Zeraeph's advocate and mentor to look at the information. Again, Zeraeph's attacks on me began long before she had any reason to involve off-Wiki disputes or to believe that I was one of the people she has had those disputes with: I merely happened to cross paths with her because of a FARC. I concur with ajn and Nandesuka's analysis of the situation: unless there is a very fast cessation of these attacks and recognition that there is no reason to believe I am one of the people Zeraeph has had off-Wiki disputes with, as soon as I'm home, I will bring the ArbCom case myself. I am the one who best knows where to find all the pieces and the dates. ] 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Don't forward the emails at all--contact the sender and inform him/her of Deathphoenix's offer to mentor. Let the sender decide. ] 18:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::::My once daily checkin: Brilliant solution, thanks. (I have never responded to the sender's emails, as I don't want to be part of the whole drama: it appears that the sender read this and has already contacted ajn.) I feel strongly that the sender needs to be protected. I also failed to make another thing clear yesterday: If the sender is to be considered a "stalker", the sender has violated no Wiki policies, and only came (apparently) to Wiki after seeing Zeraeph do to me what she has done elsewhere to others. Once I asked that I no longer receive these e-mails, they stopped. The sender has turned out to be right about everything I was warned about, so I consider the sender credible, and to be protected. ] 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::::Ah. I thought these emails were the harassing emails, not information sent by other people. In that case, that's fine, I'd rather not know. FWIW, I have yet to correspond with Zeraeph today, so I'm not sure how she feels about the whole thing (or even if I could be considered a mentor). All that is moot if she doesn't accept me as a mentor/advocate anyway. --] ] 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	For whatever it might be worth at this point, I agree with ajn and others that this individual is not only very nasty but probably delusional, that everything reasonable that can be tried to get him or her to become a positive contributor to Misplaced Pages has been tried, failed and indeed has only made things worse, and that a community ban is both warranted and probably achievable. I ] in the most recent mediation attempt, and the response was a) a repeat of precisely the same vague and barely coherent non-evidence that I was trying to get past and b) the most vicious and potentially libelous things Zeraeph had said on Misplaced Pages to date at the time. I seriously believe that he or she should, not only be off Misplaced Pages '''forever''', but probably in jail or a mental institution as well for that response, and can't imagine how anyone could defend its author. I actually regret that my next response to Zeraeph was so mild - to be honest I skipped over most of the stalking accusations and so on the first time through. Not only were his comments about Sandy at that time completely outrageous toward her, they were rather a slap in the face to me as well. Ban with extreme prejudice. ] 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	I've now had email from someone (not SG) offering to forward me the emails. This was my response:
	: ''I think the best thing would be for you to not forward the emails to anyone at this time - this is a Misplaced Pages problem and it's regrettable that off-Misplaced Pages problems have intruded. If anyone else feels it would be useful to know what was in them, I'll be happy to act as an intermediary and make sure that no personal information is divulged.''
	By "anyone else" I mean involved admins, of course. The person who emailed me stipulated that they were not to be passed directly to ]. I think that's what was stipulated - re-reading the message, it could have meant "not to be passed to anyone who is trying to help Zeraeph". Either way, I've not seen them and I don't want to (unless it's necessary). --] (]) 10:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::There's not much in the emails that anyone with eyes wide open can't figure out, or that will be news to you, ajn. The problem is, they do contain identifying information, and if I redacted that information, I couldn't forward the emails with headers. At any rate, I want this to end. It is taking as much of my time as bringing an ArbCom case would, and when I return from vacation, I will have lots of Wiki work to catch up on. I still agree with those who said an ArbCom case will not be good for Wiki or good for Zeraeph, but I have a feeling if I don't bring the case, I'll still be responding to this issue months from now. It is with some irony that I noted the comments above that Zeraeph was "frustrated". This is a situation wholly caused by her and brought upon herself by no one but her, with me as the target, so I'm not entirely sympathetic anymore to her frustration. The people who followed her to Wiki certainly complicated a situation which Wiki admins could have handled, but they followed her to Wiki because she apparently continued a pattern of abuse here she has engaged in elsewhere. I'll check in tomorrow. ] 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I'm fine with all of this, apart from this stigma that seems to be attached to my good faith attempts to help someone (I'd like to think that I'm mature and experienced enough not to let my attempts to help Zeraeph get in the way of doing what's best for Misplaced Pages and in not making unjustified attacks for someone). You guys are beginning to make me wish I hadn't replied to Zeraeph's request to the Unblock mailing list. --] ] 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: I don't think anyone doubts your good faith or integrity. What's worrying some of us is that any further attempts to give Zeraeph a chance to defend herself will be abused by her. See her recent post to wikien-l, for example. I firmly believe that the most helpful thing that could be done right now is a permanent block and no more discussion, here or offline. Engaging with someone in her state and trying to reason with her is very unlikely to help anyone. --] (]) 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::As with ajn, I don't doubt your good faith or integrity. I doubt ''Zeraeph's'' good faith and integrity. It's very nice of you to offer to help this individual, but I believe it to be naïve; all you are likely to accomplish is to directly or indirectly give him or her a platform for further abusive actions (as happened with my own attempt to introduce some rationality into the debate), and that's not a desirable outcome no matter how good the intentions of the person doing it. Zeraeph is not above attempting the same kind of manipulation of which s/he is so quick to accuse others, and I believe that is likely what will prove to be happening here. ] 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	I'm experienced enough to not let facetious or invalid information leak to Misplaced Pages via my own edits. What I hope to accomplish is to look at Zeraeph's information closely and either tell her that the information doesn't indicate too much or find some way of correcting the situation if it does. Since most of you believe that her information is invalid, you shouldn't be too worried, because while I genuinely want to help Zeraeph, I also want to make sure that she is either made aware that her accusations are unmerited or that, if they are, I can help her correct the situation. My dealing with her gives her a way of dealing with someone on Misplaced Pages. It does not mean that she has a meatpuppet who will blindly post anything that she writes. Currently, she is blocked from Misplaced Pages (a block that I'm not contesting), and her talk page is also protected (which, despite your offer to allow me to unprotect, remains protected). This pretty much means that the only ways she can communicate with someone on Misplaced Pages are through email, and that's where I come in. What she writes goes to me. Yes, I read her recent post to the mailing list and while it's a little troubling, the language isn't over-the-top. If it becomes as such, the listmods will likely ban her from the mailing list anyway. Which once again just leaves me to deal with her. What's the harm in that? I'm not a vexatious litigant, and I'm not ignorant either. Sometimes, just sweeping something under the rug and ignoring it isn't the answer. ajn, you must know that we don't hand out permanent blocks like candy. Community bans only become as much if someone permablocks the user and no other admin bothers to unblock. I am fine with this long block you've put her on while I try to deal with this user, but I won't stand idly by and see this user get permanently blocked while I've got some fruitful dialog with her. And this fruitful dialog is nothing that everyone else should be stressed out about either. I'm not an ignorant meatpuppet who allows any statements made by anyone cloud how he sees other users. If result of my discussions with her are that she should stop editing Misplaced Pages, then so be it. I actually suggested that plan of action in our discussions, and she may consider it if it seems she can't edit Misplaced Pages without resolving these issues, but I would like me and Zeraphael to make that determination for ourselves, not via a community ban forced upon her. --] ] 18:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:"you must know that we don't hand out permanent blocks like candy" - I'd hardly say this is candy, this user should have been blocked a while ago. Constant, unrepenting harrassment of other editors; and yes, I've had a bit of first-hand experience in the articles as well (although thankfully I was never the target but I tried to defend those who were). Please, let this one rest in peace so this user can solve his/her issues; Misplaced Pages is not a very good place to do that, in fact it usually just makes them worse; LOL!!! ] 19:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Yeah, the candy remark bugged me too. DP, you're making it sound like all he did was swear at someone or something like that. Frankly, trivializing Zeraeph's offenses, such as calling someone an "erotomanic stalker", is rather offensive. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but ''at best'' failing to consider how that might come across backs up my above charge of naïvety. ] 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, I didn't mean it that way, and I resent the implication that I'm naive. You're entitled to your opinion, and I know you didn't mean it that way, but I find your remark at least as insulting as my inadvertent remark about candy. You'd be singing a different tune if you were to look at the nature of my discussions with Zeraeph. I am by no means trivialising what Zeraeph has done, and I am not saying that what she did was minor. What I am saying is that community banning Zeraeph will not solve these problems of which you speak. And no, I am not saying Misplaced Pages is therapy either. I am dealing with Zeraeph '''off-wiki'''. How many times do I have to say that? I am dealing with Zeraeph '''off-wiki'''. That and the fact that she is already being blocked for a month should be sufficient. I do not support a community ban. You guys are asking for a community ban, and I'm not supporting it. Simple as that. If you guys want to file an arbitration case to get her banned for a year, that's fine, go ahead and file, I have no problems with Misplaced Pages processes being followed. But if you think you can get her banned through a unanimous community ban, I'm afraid you are mistaken. --] ] 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, first of all, as I understand a community ban does not need to be unanimous. Leaving that aside, though, let me come at this from a slightly different angle. Could you please explain what positive result for Misplaced Pages you hope or expect to accomplish? Under what circumstances do you think Zeraeph should be permitted to edit again, and what benefits do you beleive will result when that happens? You can deal with Zeraeph off-wiki as much as you like, and as long as it stays off-wiki it's no real concern of mine (though I can see why Sandy might have a different view), it's the potential ON-wiki consequences that bother me. ] 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Actually, it does have to be unanimous. A community ban is simply an indefinite block that other admins can't be bothered to undo. If a single admin wants to undo an indefinite block as a result of a community ban, that community ban will not hold. To have an ''enforceable'' ban on a user requires the approval from ArbCom, Jimbo, or via an ], and unless things have changed since I last paid attention to it, ArbCom can only hand out one-year blocks on main accounts (sockpuppet accounts are another matter). As to your next question, I was hoping to tiptoe around it before, but I'll be frank. I believe that if you simply hand out a blanket block, Zaphrael will continue to find a way to make life difficult for the said parties. While I understand how harrying it is for you people, I may have found another angle with Zaphrael and how to approach her. She's already been blocked for a month, and right now, she can't really do anything on Misplaced Pages, unless she chooses to get around the block by using sockpuppets or anon IPs, but from what I see in our emails, Zaphrael is fully aware that I will not help her at all if she breaks the block on her in this fashion. I'm reviewing her information in a neutral manner, and I can have feedback that I can give her. Whatever the result, I can act appropriately. --] ] 08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::That's actually a reasonable answer that I am a lot more comfortable with. That being the case, good luck. ] 17:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Thanks. As I stated below, I hope Zeraeph and I can come to an agreement. --] ] 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	''What's worrying some of us is that any further attempts to give Zeraeph a chance to defend herself will be abused by her. See her recent post to wikien-l, for example. ajn'' I do not have access to, nor have time while on vacation, to track down this post, but if she is continuing to smear my name, I hope someone has either saved that information or will forward it to me so that I will have a record of it for any potential ArbCom case. I am relieved to see that others have (finally) noted the severity of the statements Zeraeph has made against me, since I was surprised at the initial mild responses, considering how severely she has attacked me in so many places, with no foundation. Phoenix, I have no doubt at all of your good faith effort, but I do wonder if you've had experience with the particular issues and behaviors in evidence. I would also like to have an idea if there is a concensus here as to whether I should bring the Arbcom case. If some admins finally realize what I've been attempting to ignore, I will be glad to continue to ignore it if others think that is best for Wiki and she can be prevented from the continued attacks and smears, which are clearly beyond the pale of anything I've encountered on Wiki. On the other hand, if others feel I should bring the case, I'm willing. It's not fair, but it is what it is. ] 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Please see my response above. And yes, I have experience with these particular issues and behaviours (admittedly, not as a formally trained professional) and it is precisely because of this experience that I am approaching it this way. Think of it this way: she's already blocked for a month and her talk page is protected. If she decides to write any further emails to the mailing list that the listmods deem unacceptable, they will reject it. Any of her other activities beyond this will be outside of Misplaced Pages, and these actions may occur regardless of whether she is community banned from Misplaced Pages or not. Please, this time is mine to use (and in all of your opinions, to waste). While I understand how harrying this is for you, I believe this would be equally harrying whether I expend this effort or not. At least give me the chance to expend this effort, try to talk to Zaphrael, and have us (me and Zaphrael) both come to an agreement on something before we act on it. --] ] 08:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I agree that a community ban won't stop her from harassing me, and my concern is that she will use socks and proxies, and may impersonate me. I have no concerns about off-Wiki attempts or activities: I have never encountered her off-Wiki, and to put it plainly, Zeraeph thinks she knows who I am, but since she's wrong and I'm not who she thinks I am, there is no chance she can harm me in real life or off-Wiki. The only concern is on-Wiki, so I am in agreement with any approach that might work in the long-term. As I've said from the beginning, I'm willing to follow whatever approach is best for Wiki, and will hopefully keep me safe from longer-term attacks via socks, proxies, and impersonations. I just hope others will have my back, because the viciousness is alarming. ] 16:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Even while Zeraeph (I keep misspelling her name!) and I are engaging in useful dialog, I am aware of the possibility that she could be doing these things. If she is making any on-Wiki attacks via socks and open proxies, let me know and I will look into these cases myself or, if you are asking another admin to look into this, please let me know regardless. Misplaced Pages mentorship goes both ways: mentors are supposed to help and guide the people that they are mentoring, but they also issue warnings and blocks if the people they are mentoring continue with un-Wiki behaviour. However, sockpuppet and impersonator accounts can be blocked indefinitely, and this would not be contentious at all. If the account attacking you is a sockpuppet of Zeraeph, I would have no problem with an indef block because Zeraeph is getting around her block in an un-Wiki manner, and if the account attacking you is an impersonator of Zeraeph, she would happily have that account indef blocked because it's trying to get her punished even more. The simplest thing to do would simply be to indef block a sock or impersonator account (or temporarily block the IP) and revert any edits that those accounts make without further action. If, however, a CheckUser confirms the accounts as belonging to Zeraeph, further action would be relevant. I feel confortable saying this because I am certain that Zeraeph would not engage in sockpuppetry while we are in useful dialog, but have no problems with fixing anything that happens because of my misplaced trust. --] ] 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::OK, I'm comfortable that you should be allowed time to see if you can attain a more workable long-term solution, as my concern has always been how I could be safe in the long-term, knowing that short-term approaches and blocks might not help. I hope the admins who said they would bring the ArbCom case if I didn't will also give this some time. I am willing to wait. ] 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks. Hopefully Zeraeph and I can come to an agreement. --] ] 12:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: Torinir and ajn both mentioned they would be off-Wiki: I will leave a message on ajn's talk page. ] 23:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::I've observed a little of the behaviour of Zeraeph, and would like to add that I feel great disquiet about the effect on what should be serious, professional work on WP. I'd be relieved if something could be done about it. (I should disclose that I'm a Wikifriend of Sandy's.) ] 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	I believe myself and Justdignity made some important contributions to the Bully and Workplace Bullying topics back around May 2006 but the text kept on being immediately deleted by Zeraeph on the basis of no citations. But very little else on those topics had citations either. Zeraeph said she would be happy to reinstate my text if it had citations. But that left me at her mercy as to whether in her view i had enough citations or in the right places. She should have left my text in place with citation markers in place and I would have gladly provided citations. On her basis i hardly felt motivated to bother doing any more work. I would love to contribute more to the Bully, Workplace Bullying and NPD topics but not with Zeraeph around. --] 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	Please also check the huge number of revealing comments made by Zeraeph on http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bully I even created a subtopic called Zeraeph on that page back in May. The "Characteristic of Bullies subtopic" is also particularly revealing. User "Justdignity" makes the following revealing comment about Zeraeph: "I have read some of the feedback on your page and I realise Penbat and I are not the only ones to have fallen foul of your personal crusade to uphold what you think is WIki policy. While I accept Wiki policy applies to me, please will you accept that it applies to you too." --] 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I am the aforementioned Justdignity and have to say that my introduction to Wiki editing was short and thoroughly disenchanting thanks Zeraeph's perceived need to control (i.e. delete) user input, justified by non-sequitur commentary (i.e. nonsense). I retreated from Wiki because I had (and have) better things to do with my life than to waste my time grovelling to Zeraeph. However, I would be happy to consider completing the work I started if I knew that Zeraeph had been permanently blocked. ] 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	Zeraeph had a large role in the banning of Sam Vaknin. In my view Zeraeph's contributions were poisonous. Sam Vaknin is a self proclaimed narcissist but not in my view a malicious narcissist. Like him or loath him he is an important authority in the understanding of narcissism. See:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sam_Vaknin
	and
	http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Vaknin
	If you strip away Zeraeph's comments you dont have too much left to damn Sam Vaknin and some of the other comments were because others were taken in by Zeraeph's poison. I hope that Sam Vaknin can be reinstated.
	--] 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Just to add that I think that some of the others putting the knife into Sam Vaknin were Zeraeph sock puppets. ] 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Copyright Violations by Devios is against wikipedia's rules. ==
	Copyright Violations by "Devios" is against the pillar of Misplaced Pages's Rules!
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72495019 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72467578
	Compare the info which Judith Sims wrote and the illegal info Devios is putting and reverting to copyright info on wikipedia's website is considered VANDALISM!!! Read carefully. You will find copyrighted info on wikipedia's website. This is against the law.
	http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0003/ai_2603000396 < Judith Sims
	Thanks in advance for conducting an investigation into this violation.
	The current version of the grapefruit seed extract article still has some illegal copyrighted information left in it.
	The second part of my complaint is the user Drini who has wrongfully protected this article.
	This user Drini has protected information in the article that is copyright violated information.
	Again, Drini has protected this article which has illegal information in it.
	Drini has reverted to illegal copyrighted information and protected this illegal copyrighted information which is against wikipedia's rules which can be proven by looking at the history section of the grapefruit seed extract article.
	Here is a link to prove Drini is protecting illegal copyrighted info written by Judith Sims: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72496406 Misplaced Pages does NOT have written permission from the copyright holder to use this information. Again, the current version still has some illegal copyright violations remaining in it.
	:You mean ? ] 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	Yes, this section was removed but there is still some more illegal info that needs to be removed. I want to REVERT back to before August 25 to fix the copyright violations but Drini has blocked me from fixing the article. Drini has protected this info (intentional vandalism) that is illegal to have in this article. Why? This is obvious copyright violations!
	:: Do note that the anon above has made 17 edits to the article at this point today, after ] unprotected. Seems to be working along fine. ] <small>]</small> 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	Note: Only after much hassle and making an official complaint about DRINI did I get help.
	Also, this is not over by a long shot. The user Devios put copyrighted info on the GSE website and Drini is the one who protected this illegal info about the Grapefruit Seed Extract article. DO NOT PUSH THIS INCIDENT UNDER THE RUG. I WILL RAISE MY VOICE EVEN LOUDER NOW. I declare here set forth that I am making an official complainst against the user Devios for copyright violations put in the grapefruit seed extract article. I demand and investigation into the user Devios!
	:Y'all might want to lighten up. The page is unprotected, you're editing away merrily, looks like you've reverted extensively to remove the copyvio, and suggesting edit wars as you did on my talk page is probably not a good idea. ] might apply here. (Boy, a guy offers a bit of followup info, and he falls right into the middle of things...) ] <small>]</small> 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	Hello Sir, I am interested in AVOIDING edit wars. Please STOP the user Devios from puting illegal copyrighted info on the GSE article again. I would expect an investigation into the copyright infringement. I think it is appropiate to STOP the user from violated the law again and again and again. Remember, I want to stop the edit wars once and for all by the user Devios.
	:: uh.. scary.. an official complaint about me ... -- <small> ]</small> 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	IF YOU AIN'T GOT MOJO NIXON THEN YOUR STORE COULD USE SOME FIXIN'! - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	Again, Devios illegally put copyrighted materials on the grapefruit seed extract article. Where is my JUSTICE. Where is the investigation. Please tell Devios to STOP illegally putting copyrighted materials on the GSE article over and over again.
	Also, DRINI told me she unprotected the article but if you look at the time she claimed she did this the article was still blocked at that time.
	When DRINI claimed the GSE article was unprotected is was still protected. The KEY is the time. Check the user talk of DRINI that proves this BOYOND any shadow of any dissenters. I can prove it DRINI lied to ME at that time. Just check the times!!!!!!!!!! JUST SHALL PREVAIL.
	:Good god, you're right. Your yelling has worked. Just for you, I'm going to block both of them indefinitely, protect the article to your preferred version, and get a steward to speedy-sysop you right away. Good work, man! No, you have inspired me... I mean GOOD WORK MAN!!!!! JUST HAS PREVAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --] - '']'' - ] 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	Just so you know, ranting on ] (or ], for that matter) is likely to get you ignored. Or, apparently, made fun of. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	"Rebels must rise." Notice how so-called wikipedians FAIL to deflect attention away from the issues at hand. WHERE IS YOUR HEART?
	:Remember ''How The Grinch Stole Christmas''? How tiny his heart was at the beginning? That's kinda like what I've got, but colder. --] - '']'' - ] 23:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	Please check the history of DRINI: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Drini
	Drini has ERASED info from her/his discussion page but I have the link that proves DRINI was dishonest with me.
	I am tracking this users activity on GSE. Drini seems to be playing around with the article recently. This is beyond odd.
	] and ] blocked due to trolling and wikistalking for a day -- <small> ]</small> 00:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:WHERE IS YOUR HEART??? (ahem) ] <small>]</small> 02:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Can we please get some "official" word on all of this? Or a range block? This is getting irritating. ] <small>]</small> 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:<s>While some of the information is similar, the comparisons that I did does not really constitute a blatant copyright infringement. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)</s>
	:Ok, I notice at the History section, a lot of the text was copied and reworded, same with the paragraph on General use. My apologies to all. However, I am not sure if the text can be removed from it;s history. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Potential confusion between user names ==
	We have both ] and ]. Given the potential for confusion, I'm inclined to think that we should require one of them to change their username. Since ] is new, we might ask him/her to choose a different name. It doesn't appear that the "new" account is in any way an attempt to impersonate ], so I'm not sure of policy in this case. --] | ] 19:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:We have ] and ], ] and ] (to my knowledge). ''']''' <sup>(] ])</sup> 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	*] states ''Misplaced Pages does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following: ...Names that can be confused with other contributors.'' It is a policy. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I think the addition of "The" makes the usernames sufficiently different. I suggest to do precisely nothing until actual there is actual evidence of confusion. ] ] 21:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	Err.. sorry if I caused any confusion. I didn't realize there were any other usernames in relation to mine until a few days ago :\ The greatest argument I could present is that we haven't blocked ] or ask him/her to change thier name despite it being very similar to admin ]. I do think the "The" part of my name is enough of a distinction between ]. Also take into consideration that the editor has only 4 contributions and has been inactive since May. I don't think anyone should have to change thier username, as the other is relatively inactive, or not active enough to cause confusion. But thats my $0.02.. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Given the ] by the 'older' user, I tend to agree with Kusma. However, confusion has occurred so I am not entirely sure. Future has signed up to sk, but I don't think has contributed much there. ]--] <sup>]</sup> 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, it has occured, which I recognized, hence my edit above about realizing this a few days ago. But this editor who got us confused was also legit trolling around Misplaced Pages blaming actions over on a talk page about masturbation. I think the inactivity of ] is enough to not get us confused. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::There is also ] and ] (who has made some troll edits) which confused me at first. I suggest we leave the existing names, but implement a policy from now on that names should not have a close similarity to an existing name. ] 23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Um, we already have that policy. However, similar names get through. If they are good faith editors and confusing isn't happening on a daily basis, just leave them be. ] | ] 02:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: Agree with ], many are blocked at creation but those blocking tend not to know every username on wikipedia and certainly not the less active ones. If everything is going ok and no general confusion then there seems little reason to do anything. If it bothers you, you can ask one or other to consider changing name voluntarily and if that doesn't sort it out there is ] to deal with such issues. --] 06:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	May I suggest creating a page ]? -- ] 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	*Ok, done -- ]18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	== I'm editing from a proxy ==
	This is the IP of the Swedish darknet provider "Relakks", it's currently not banned from editing. Make it so :) ] 21:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	:A proxy is fine (well, fine enough for now, anyway). It's the '''open''' proxies that we're not too keen on. So, which is it? --] - '']'' - ] 23:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
	::It's a private, encrypted proxy that requires a monthly subscription to access. I guess it's up to your definition of what an "open" proxy is, but I think it qualifies, even if it isn't monetarily free. Plus it's still a violation of ], since it is anonymous. - ] 00:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::This isn't an open proxy IMO. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 01:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I don't think this needs blocking. I doubt any vandals are willing to pay money to engage in vandalism. It's the free proxies, which anyone can access, which are problematic. --] (]) 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Exactly. Proxies such as this are ok because you have to pay. The problem ones are free proxies, i.e. anyone can access it. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::: There are (as I understand it) two other problems with open proxies. One GFDL which requires some form of attribution. I think this proxy server lacks that problem. Second if users are making sockpuppets or placing defamatory or libelous material (or related problems) we need checkuser data. Therefore a non-free open proxy is still highly problematic. This is a serious policy issue that needs to be addressed. ] 02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Blocking on ] ==
	Hi everyone. I'd just like to have the following clarified. I've heard it discussed before on IRC, but I haven't actually found any policy that implicitly allows or encourages it:
	If a user has requested to exercise their ] and have their talk pages deleted/protected, is it
	a good practice to indefinitely block their accounts to:
	# Protect against account hijacking or prevent further misuse
	# Force them to request an unblock thus giving an administrator the opportunity to restore their talk page history.
	# Provide a record that such user claimed to have left the project on a specified date
	# Discourage theatrics because "quiting" would be taken much more seriously.
	If the above procedure is indeed commonly accepted, could we please have it codified somewhere? Thanks, <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	: This makes a lot of sense. I have seen at least three problematic users vanish and then decide to return leaving the previous material deleted. The correct place to put this is on the village pump policy page I imagine (and since right to vanish is cross-projects this may need to be brought up on meta for among other things making sure that individual projects can have different versions of how the right is implemented. ) ] 05:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::There is a lot of discussion around ] -- see ] on VP (policy) for example that included Jimbo Wales. --] 06:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for the VP link. I've cross-posted my proposal there. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 07:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	: Not sure it does much really. For (1) if it get hijacked they can do (2) so the hijack is just a little more drawn out. For (2) general opinion seems to have been not to delete talk pages but just blank them. For (3) not sure why we need such a record. --] 06:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: Three makes sense so if a user repeatedl claims they are vanishing and then shows up again we can take their vanishing less seriously. ] 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: Well I guess I don't take people vanishing that seriously anyway, people have all sorts of reasons for wanting to leave and later return. --] 17:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	==Hello, Ericsaindon2==
	I was going through what links here on my talk page, and there appears to be a problem with what one person claimed about me. ] is an imposter of me. I despise that someone would make those harsh statements, and use my name as a scapegoat in order to benefit their views, at my expense. But know, that this person was not me, and is not affiliated with me in any way shape or form. I would appreciate it if you would block the user indefinately for something else, but not as my imposter, because it makes me look bad for something I would have never done. You know my nature by now, and know how I operate, and it is clear that this is not me at all. I dont use vulgar language, and I find it pathetic that someone would become an imposter of me just to make me look bad. So, please at least know that this was not me, and I have no clue who it was that made these statements to Will Beback, and then reverted them (while using my name as the signature). But, I just do not want to be affiliated with a baffoon like this user in any way. Sincerely, ]
	:Please stop editing...you're just resetting the ban. Now it's four days longer than it was before. ] 07:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	Ericsaindon2 did have a point though, XClyn did indeed place <nowiki>{{sockpuppetproven|Ericsaindon2}}</nowiki> on his own userpage. I've removed it now. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 07:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:He coudl have just emailed an admin about it though. Now the ban is five days longer than it would ahve been. ] 04:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ], possible 3rr, pos edit war ==
	I happened upon ] tonight, and the history of the page looks suspect to me. I was unsure if this was a 3rr vio, or even a possible edit war between users ''MarkV'', ''AbuAmir'', and a few anonymous ip addresses, but figured an admin should probably take a closer look at it. ] 08:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:3RR violations have their own subpage. ] --] 09:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::A simple solution presents itself, given that this term scores precisely four Google hits, all four on Misplaced Pages. <b>]</b> 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'll speedy the talk page too since it is now orphaned. --] ] 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Wow! O.K., that was an unexpected response. Though I think I understand your reasons for deleting that article, I can't say that I wholly agree with them. I felt that it was a noteworthy article, but felt that the circumstances of the editing were suspect, prompting me to post my concerns here. Therefore, I humbly request an undeletion (] is an example of why to keep the article) and put a ''request cleanup'' tag on it. ] 07:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	== We're all publishers ==
	{{cquote|Our belief is that since every post is attributed to an individual, is time-stamped and is retained in the database, the foundation itself is not publishing that content. We view individual editors as responsible and have prominently displayed on every edit page that individuals are responsible for their own contributions. We take the position that we are a service provider and are protected under §230. We try to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add. &mdash; Brad Patrick, September 7, 2006 }}
	''We try to emphasize to everyone who posts that they, as publishers, have responsibility for what they add.'' Uh, no we don't? I've been here for three years and I'm hearing today that I'm considered a "publisher" with all the legal responsibility that entails. This would never have occurred to me. Should we add something somewhere prominent in MediaWiki space? Does someone have a mandate from the Board to publicize this more widely? ] 13:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Fully endorse Haukur, that's a very good point. First I've heard of it, too. Brad, you have prominently displayed ''where'' on every edit page that individuals are responsible for their own contributions? I'm serious, please go look. Or are you just now ''about'' to prominently display, etc...? That would be akin to shouting "You get back in here! I'm shutting the door right now!" after the horse that trotted out of the stable some years ago. ] | ] 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC).
	:: Brad's the Foundation attorney. While his statement may be influenced by his relationship with the Foundation, it rings true to me. Even if the Foundation ''were'' to be held to be a content provider (which Brad apparently thinks isn't the case), the editors of Misplaced Pages would be held responsible in law for their own contributions. If you put something libellous on Misplaced Pages, that doesn't automatically absolve you of responsibility for what you've done. It doesn't make any difference what the Foundation says, this is the law. --] 17:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: Well... "You agree to license your contributions " always meant to me that they're ''my'' contributions, and I've only granted (GFDL) license to republish or redistribute content. however it may not be obvious to everyone not already a lawyer or familiar with copyright and publishing. ++]: ]/] 14:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Well, IANAL, but as you say that says I merely ''license'' my contributions. Presumably, the Foundation takes that license and....does somethingthatisnotpublishingbutlooksquitealotlikeit with it. Surely, even in lawyerdom, licensing is not the same as publishing. -] - ] 14:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's quite correct as far as it goes but the issue here isn't a question of copyright. I've always thought that I ''contribute'' content which is then ''published'' by the Wikimedia Foundation - just like I ''contribute'' articles to magazines and they are then ''published'' by someone else. Until I stumbled upon the above quote today no-one has told me different. ] 14:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::The distinction arrises because the Foundation and its agents (through OFFICE) exercises almost no control over what appears on the site. In particular what you post on this site will appear without anyone having approved it, and hence you are solely responsible for that content. Others might come along later and remove what you posted, but that is not the same as the agents of a magazine deciding whether or not something should be printed in the first place. ] 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Wow, okay - who's an agent of the Foundation? (I assume this has some particular legal meaning.) Are you sure that sysops don't qualify as such agents? If I unprotect ] and it gets vandalized with libel (a real enough example) then I can't be held responsible for the libel as an 'agent'? ] 14:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::Sysops, as a class, are not agents of the Foundation; they are (usually) appointed by the community. In rough terms, agents of the Foundation are those individuals employed or appointed by the Foundation and who are exercising special authority derived from that employment or appointment. This would include Jimbo, Danny, the Board, Brion, the election officials. It may include ArbCom, OTRS, and the Devs. It is unlikely to include sysops, burueacrats, etc. As a sysop you are personally responsible for your actions (so you could be liable if you chose to restore or protect libelous content), but you are not (usually) responsible for the actions of others. ] 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	: I always assumed this was the case (after reading some discussions about s.230). It is much better that individual contributors are responsible in law for their edits than that the Foundation assumes responsibility when it has no way of preventing defamatory articles. However I've never heard anyone emphasise this point to anybody. ] 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	: I have long assumed this was the case as well, and have said so on a number of occasions. I'm also pretty sure I've seen similar quotes from the foundation in the distant past, though I wouldn't know where just now. (Haukur, where does this particular one come from?) However, I would agree with the above comments that this is not necessarily clear to the average user. ] 14:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Link's up there but here it is again: ] 14:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Oops. I saw the link was an external site and skipped past it. Thanks. ] 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:If I am the publisher, is someone else allowed to remove it? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 15:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, that's what happens when your published materials are licensed under the GFDL. ] 15:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	: Misplaced Pages-Watch.org/wikitort.html deserves some credit for looking closely at this issue. ] 15:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	: I'm pretty sure that this is the law which protects public ], ], etc. from being liable for something that someone does in that forum/chat room/etc. I remember when blogging on LiveJournal was half-of-the-time called "publishing" - pretty much posting anything for public access seems to be "publishing". I think it's an important concept for the Internet to separate the infrastructure from those who ''abuse'' the infrastructure - I wouldn't see why Misplaced Pages wouldn't work the same way. The provider is already damaged enough by the abuse, so they shouldn't be doubly injured through legal troubles on top of that. —]]] 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Need assistance with ''Lost'' mediation ==
	The ] has been at a standstill for about a month now. The mediator, ], took a wikibreak in the middle of the mediation without handing it off to anybody else. Two notes were left on ] talk page (] and ]) and two follow ups have been posted, but he has ignored all of them. I, along with everyone else involved in this mediation, would appreciate it if somebody could do something to get it moving along again. Thanks. ] (<sup>]</sup> | <small>]</small> | <sub><span class="plainlinks"></span></sub>) 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	*Still no response to this, and the current discussion is at a standstill (and at a pinnacle of frustration for all involved, unfortunately). Could we please get some kind of momentum back in terms of mediation? Thanks, ] 22:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	**Same sentiments as Jtrost and PKtm really. Our mediation has been left out in the cold, and this issue is tiring. I hope an admin will take what we're asking seriously. -- ] 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	*** Agreed. We've been discussing things since July (and the disagreement started months earlier than that). It had been our hope that a mediator would help finally resolve things, but with Demon AWOL, the frustration level is very high right now, especially because the next season is starting in a few weeks. A mediator (or even an uninvolved admin) would be greatly appreciated. --] 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Unit citation ==
	How do I give a Barnstar Award to a entire Misplaced Pages Unit, such as ''this'' one, for helping Misplaced Pages become a better place, to thank the unit for its valued assisstance to me many times ? Have I done so ? Appreciate the assisstance. ] 22:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	:No need, just a simple thank you is enough. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
	==Sockpuppet block of ]?==
	{{User5|Xosa2}} from me concerning the indefinite blocking of his/her account {{user5|Xosa}} by ]. SlimVirgin appears to have indef. blocked this account as being "almost certainly" {{user5|Zephram Stark}}. Now for all I know her block is correct but without being familar with the details of Zephram Stark's blocking I don't see where a case has been made that {{user|Xosa}} is indeed a sock. In response to a content RfC ] became involved in a content dispute with ] on the ] article so an unproven case of sockpuppetry could be a bit improprietous.
	Due to Xosa's request and the possibility of a "conflict of interest" blocking, would another administrator kindly take a look at this and just verify that this indefinite blocking was correct? Thanks. ''(]])'' 11:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:The original RFAr is ]. And ] is information on the long term abuse that Zephram Stark has engaged in. Nothing immediately jumps out... but it ''could'' be a clever puppet. Bear in mind that nothing comes up in the ], so the ident is likely to be on the basis of editing patterns or personal emails sent to SlimVirgin. ] * ] 11:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	==Objectional Name==
	A user has created user-name Misplaced Pages.org@bulk.pompom.se which seems to be objectionable. I am a new editor so I am not sure where to report. Forgive me if this is the wrong place, but it seems nobody noticed this name so far. ] 12:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I've indefinitely blocked the user. Thanks for letting us know. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 14:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::As I peterol, is this the place where I should report such names. Or is there a better place. I need your guidance as I am still very new to the Wiki. ] 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::No, report to ] for offensive names. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	I have started a list of things that are frequently proposed and have already been debated to death (e.g. "we need content warnings" or "protect the article on the main page") along with brief indications on why these are not good ideas. Feedback would be appreciated, as would more perennial issues that people have dealt with. ] 15:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Seems like a good idea. ] ] 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Would this be any different than ]? —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 15:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Yes, this is a concise list, and the part on the village pump is an ongoing discussion. ] 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Alright, looks good to me then! —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Very useful.--<font style="background:white">]</font> 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] wikipedia advertising campaign ==
	That ] guy is now cashing in on his fame and launching some kind of viral/youtube style ringtone service or something. His new project ] probably is notable enough compared to the amount of crap we have in the webcomic section, but it looks planted by the company backing him, and might be more suitable for a merge. I first became aware of this after spotting New Numa's press section on their website, http://www.newnuma.com/news.html , where you'll see that 2 of the 3 links respond to Misplaced Pages articles. You'll also find that ] (Jaeter is the company behind New Numa) has uploaded a nice GFDL image of Brolsma at ], in which he wears a nice fat tshirt promoting the new venture. So, what do you think? - ]]] 15:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:prod and if that doesn't work AFD.] 18:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Lotteries and spam ==
	Hello,
	The page ] contains the text "http://www.lotto.pl (This site cannot be a link because the Wikimedia software declares it a spam site and will not allow the page to save if it is a link.)". Assuming that this site isn't spam, I thought I would bring this to your attention so that it may be fixed. I don't speak polish so can't comment. ] 17:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I've noticed that the link is clearly allowed given that it auto linked, so will edit the page myself.
	::And BTW, I've now got an account. ] 17:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	==] article needs to be watched==
	I'd like to invite other administrators to add this article to their watchlists until October. It appears to me that any criticism of the proposal is being removed whether it conforms to the ] and ] policies or not. Please check the history to see if you agree. There is a referendum coming up in Panama next month and so it is important that this article treats both sides fairly. That's why i think we should collectively pay some attention to the article over the next month. -- ] | ] 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:What those reversions are saying is that your agenda is a little ''too'' obvious in the content you add. Consider debating the issue on Talk instead. <b>]</b> 21:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Well I haven't added any content. It's others who are being reverted but apart from that, yes, exactly. Talk page debate is needed rather than what is happening just now. However I have a feeling it's only going to happen if we start taking an interest in what the current editors are doing there. -- ] | ] 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Closure of ] urgently needed ==
	On August 29, 2006, Bobby Boulders, a vandal indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages, nominated the ] for deletion, using the sockpuppet ] -- see ] and ]. The ] was speedily deleted by ] as a result of Bobby Boulders' MFD nomination, and arguments against the existence of the ] made by Bobby Boulders, using ] and other sockpuppets. This action was overturned at ], and Bobby Boulders' MFD nomination was relisted at ]. Although it has now been revealed that this MFD nomination was initiated by an indefinitely banned vandal who admitted that he initiated the nomination process and argued against the ] in , ] was not closed as a speedy keep. Indeed, this MFD discussion remains active, even after MFD nominations made a day later, such as ], were closed. Since ] was initiated and argued for by a banned vandal for the purpose of disruption, and since a strong supermajority of established users have recommended keeping the ], it would seem advisable to close ], thereby ending Bobby Boulders' disruption of the ]'s project page. Continuing to maintain this MFD discussion initiated by Bobby Boulders seems to facilitate and encourage trolling/vandalism by this banned user. ] 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Can't see the harm in letting the discussion continue without drumming-up a speedy close. The CVU '''will''' be kept. So let's have the full authority of a ''keep'' behind it and ] the nominator the ants-running-around-a-crumpled-mound that they seek from us. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 19:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I'm not requesting "a speedy close". In practice, MFD nominations are ordinarily closed after five days -- see ], ], and ]. However, ] has been running for over seven days. It is high time that we end this disruptive MFD nomination, and firmly establish that the ] will be kept. ] 20:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I was under the impression that MFD's usually run for five to eight days. The intro to MfD says that "Items sent here are usually discussed for eight days," but as you noted some discussions are closed after five. I think it's probably a good idea to give the discussion ''every second'' it's 'entitled' to. No matter what the decision, there are going to be a lot of people who won't agree with it, and the last thing anyone needs is for the page to go through another deletion review because it was closed 'early.' It'll be over in around 24 hours, anyway. -- ] | ] 21:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Advice Requested ==
	I would like to use the username '''Reformed Vandal''', which has been blocked because of ]. There are quite a few ways of going about this, so I would like to solicit advice from anyone using this noticeboard. I have given my three most favoured methods, but would love to hear of other plans.
	Please assume for the sake of this discussion that I am absolutely, positively, dead set on using the name - because I am.
	'''Methods''':
	#File RFC or similar, pointing out that although ] forbids keywords with 'Vandal' in the title, there is an existance of a much more imporant rule, namely: ]. Clearly '''Reformed Vandal''' will not be a username that will cause trouble to any English-speaking human. Therefore it is within the ''spirit'' of both Misplaced Pages in general and the Username policy in paticular that I should be allowed to keep this name. This is my favourite option.
	#Push for explicit modification of the username rules to allow potentially controversial usernames with community consensus (which I believe I should get for this paticular name).
	#Try to make myself an exception by some means. This is certainly my least favoured option.
	Your thoughts?
	] 20:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Usernames which include the word "vandal" are properly considered to be inappropriate for editing on Misplaced Pages. If a user is a "reformed vandal", they are well advised to avoid disclosure of this fact. ] 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Why is that 'proper'? I can understand why something like "Vandal - the vandal on wheels!!!!" would be banned, but I see no reason for a blanket ban. As I have no interest in wikipolitics, I feel free to reveal what I like, as I do not have anything to fear from the consequences. I fully understand why in pragmatic terms it may be unwise to reveal the fact (given the temperments of some of the more vocal admins here), but I feel I have to - and that includes the username (plus the username is memorable, which I like). Thanks for your contribution though. ] 20:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Why ''would'' a legitimate editor, seeking to expand Misplaced Pages, want to refer to a past history of vandalism? Why would such a username be important other than to validate the "ex"-vandal: requiring us all to judge every edit against his/her previous vandalism and leaving us all open to accusations of failing to ] the moment the user turned on us and started borderline vandalising? If a former vandal had legitimately turned to positive editing, they would, of course, create a new account that gave no suggest of their previous behaviour and would never mention it again. Human nature. Statistically, more than one current admin would fall under this category. But a vandal wishing to parade the fact they were previously a vandal? What would that ''mean''? ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 21:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::: Quite. Being a reformed vandal is something which will become less significant with every good edit, why be lumbered with a username you will later regret? My children have boringly conventional names for much the same reason :-) Choose a neutral username and then say you are a reformed vandal on your userpage. <b>]</b> 21:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::: I will address these points if you really want me to (as I don't want to seem to be evading questions) - but I am primarily looking for information/guidance on the username issue.
	::::: One thing I will say: I am happy to be judged more harshly, even with a zero tolerance policy. I am also happy to give away my real identity to a trustworthy admin if that helps. ] 21:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: On the username issue: the policy at ] has an "eye of the beholder" clause. So, yes, you may be blocked from editing under a name that another editor finds offensive, because another editor finds that name offensive. That's what the policy says, so you need to take any issues up with the policy, not the editor who blocked you. In other news: yes, I would like the questions I asked answering. I'd be very interested to hear your opinions. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 22:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: That would be option 2 then?
	:::::::The username would not 'validate' me - I can not envisage a situation in which, in practice, I would be shown more leeway - if anything the converse is true. However, I have offered to have a voluntary zero tolerance policy placed on me to alleviate this concern. Your description of human nature is simply correct - there are many historical cases of poachers proudly turning game keeper, again I can provide cites if you like. As for the meaning, I suppose it must be related to what generally drives people towards guilty conscience type confessions, where one feels more comfortable having oneself, warts and all, on display at all times. I think the meaning is in there somewhere, but I am no psychologist. ] 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::: In addition to this, I suppose I'm motivated by what seems to be injustness of the username policy. I do not blame anyone involved at all for this - the problems caused seem to be accidental but I believe that it can be improved upon. ] 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	Enough. You don't get to vandalise and then come here and wikilawyer about our policies. Go forth and edit constructively – then once you’re contributing usefully perhaps you’ll earn the right to a hearing. Right now, you’re looking a lot like a troll, and I eat trolls for dinner. --] 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:You've also banned several non trolls for trolling. Anyway, this is neither wikilawyering nor trolling, it's asking clearly for advice. ] 00:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Well, that one more 'non troll' banned 'for trolling' :) Night, night. --] 01:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::What the hell? Power-tripping much, there? ] 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Having vandal in your username is ridiculous and will likely cause unneccasary work for rc patrollers.--<font style="background:white">]</font> 12:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	I've decided to go about this in a more 'constructive' manner, so this section can be archived. I won't forget the useful advice I got from pretty much everyone on the noticeboard, but I will try to forgive the attitude by Dr. G - from my years as a vandal tbh he was very good at blocking vandal accounts; definitely in violation of good faith, and certainly stopping genuine contributers (I know of at least 8) but also stopping a lot more real troll/vandal accounts (at least an order of magnitude more - just like Curps/Cryptoderk/Lucky 6.9/etc). Although I have quite a few issues with the current priorities of the Misplaced Pages project, I'd like to record my genuine appreciation for how admins and others have treated me over the last few days. ] 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Sockery ==
	{{vandal|Freestylefrappe}}, {{vandal|Tchadienne}} and {{vandal|Ya ya ya ya ya ya}} are all self-admittedly the same user. Not sure if anything needs doing right now, but this does look a lot like a troll at the moment. <b>]</b> 20:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Unless the user is hard-banned (ie, we reject all edits from them on principle) or is using sockpuppets abusively (there's no crime against socks, just their '''use''' abusively) then there's nothing we can do. We must ] on the above. If any one of the accounts is breaking an ArbCom resolution, or is being used abusively, then all can be blocked... although confirmation from the puppeteer is always better than confirmation from the puppets - the puppets generally being distrusted already. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 21:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Speaking as a checkuser I can confirm that they're all the same user. At the moment Ya ya has been blocked for disruption and FSF is openly evading the block. ] ] 21:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::If they are openly evading the block, and the block is for disruption, and they are being disruptive, then they should be blocked. Clearly and now. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 21:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::At some point the assumption of good faith has to run out. All three editors have a long history of blocks for civility violations, personal attacks, and edit warring. I am blocking Tchadienne and Ya<sup>6</sup> as disruptive sockpuppets. I am also blocking Freestylefrappe for a week for running disruptive socks and block evasion. If he would like to use one of the other accounts, I'd be pleased to block FSF indef and put the short block on a different account. ](]) 21:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::As a first step, I blocked FSF to the end of Ya ya ya's block. Feel free to extend. Tchadienne is unused since August, I indef-blocked that. <b>]</b> 22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I've extended the socks to indefinite blocks; I've left your block of FSF alone. If he doesn't get the point, I would recommend a ''much'' longer subsequent block. ](]) 22:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::And I blocked the IP he used today to coincide with the FSF block length. ] 22:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	I'd humbly suggest that throwing the "proven sockpuppet" tags on ] is a little gratuitous, see See and for the last two AN/I threads on this topic, where it's been long admitted by freestylefrappe himself that KI and Tchadienne were new accounts for the same user. I say new accounts and not sockpuppets: other than the block-evasion aspects (which I do not try to minimize), he has not used the accounts to my knowledge in any significant simultaneous way. Anyway, if people making decisions here could please have a look at the links I've provided there, it would be good background. Thanks. &mdash;] (]) 22:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Folks chill. The heinous 'block evade' today was to point out vandalism ("blah blah blah") which I had overlooked when I protected a page. If that's 'evading a block to be disruptive' then I encourage all users to engage in 'disruption' of that sort. Further, he has disclosed each of those accounts himself without there ever having been any need for a checkuser to do so. Not to say that there haven't been other problems (incivility, personal attacks, et cetera), but let's try to stick to ''those'' and not invent ones that don't exist. --] 23:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::It is not as clear cut as you indicate. Many edits were made after the block, the one you mention was the most useful one, not the only one. Also, while it is true that disclosure of who he is has often happened before checkuser, it seems to always be after he runs into disruption problems (when I assume he knows it is time to create yet another anonymous account). Remember, KI ran for adminship without revealing the FSF connection. Removing the tags and having the accounts redirect to his "current" account, whatever it is, is fine by me. Using a single account, with full disclosure of who he is, seems a reasonable thing to require for this user. ] 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: Sockpuppeting to evade a block is, in my opinion, a fairly clear third-rail activity. If "But, but, but, I had a ''really good reason for evading my block''" becomes an acceptable excuse for this sort of disruption, we may as well all pack it up and stop editing now. ] 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Is it 'sockpuppeting' when you disclose who you are? I wouldn't think so. Block evasion yes. Sockpuppeting, no. That implies subterfuge... which isn't on the menu here. Evading blocks is bad, but I hardly think we need to "pack it up and stop editing now" if someone isn't crucified for saying, 'There is vandalism over here and I couldn't tell you about it any other way because you protected my talk page'. --] 23:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::(edit conflict) I didn't recall that he ran for admin as KI, but I assume that was ''after'' the FSF had been desysoped? If so, I'm not sure that he should have been ''required'' to disclose it... so long as it wasn't an attempt to get '''two''' admin accounts. As to sticking to one account... I think it would certainly be in the user's best interest, but I don't think anyone has ever shown that two of these accounts ever 'voted together' or were used to 'evade 3RR' together or... anything other than complaining about blocks on other manifestations. As I said, lots of problems... but I don't think sockpuppet abuse is really one of them unless I missed some instance of it. --] 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::FSF was desysopped on Feb 12th, KI started ] on Feb 19th and started ] on April 10th. I would hope that disclosing that you have been desysopped by an ArbCom decision is an expected requirement before applying for adminship, don't you? ] 23:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	Incidentally, FSF also redirected the user page of ] to point to his own user page. Is this yet another sock, and should it be retired or not? I note that It's the only FSF account that ''hasn't'' ever received a block. ](]) 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Considering he redirected all other socks to his userpage, ie. KI and others, I would suppose that is his his sockpuppet. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 00:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::And by this edit Freestylefrappe openly admits to being Ya ya ya ya ya ya, KI, Tchadienne. As well as to being the users ] and ]. — <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC">]</span> 01:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Research request ==
	'''Please do not delete this post without discussion with ].'''
	Hello I'm a member of the research team at (formerly known as Xerox PARC) interested in understanding conflict in Misplaced Pages. A number of other admins and ] (a member of the Wiki Research community) have supported our research, and we hope that you also will support our endeavor. We are currently running a survey to understand how administrators characterize conflict. If you would like to help in our research on Misplaced Pages please complete the survey at the link below:
	http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=272072498578
	Please note that we are committed to providing quality research to the Misplaced Pages community. The results of the survey will be incorporated into an academic paper that will be submitted to a peer-reviewed conference this fall (likely the ), and will be freely available to any interested parties. A link to this publication will be posted on my ]. You can look at the ] of our first survey in which we targeted members of the Mediation Cabal to get an idea of the kinds of questions we are interested in.
	We are not journalists or spammers but an established research institution with a strong track record of high-quality publications. Here are links to find out more about our team (the ) and our , including studies on . Thank you for your help! ] 17:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	: '''Please do not remove this request'''. It is the third bloody time we've had to put it up, and I'm tired of people massively mis-interpreting Policy. Do not attempt become the third sysop to endure my wrath over this. ;-)
	: In as much as I have the authority so to do (which is not great), I welcome the research efforts from PARC. Please take this as sufficient to quell any doubts you might have about the authenticity of the request.
	: ] ], Wikimedia CRO. 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Any chance that a bot can be created to automatically send a copy of the complteted research to our (interested users) talk pages? Just a thought. ] 22:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	::if they have done this before why are they not hoasting on thier own servers and why are they not trying to contact people directly rather than useing theier current setup which gives them no control over who fills it in. It also asks about articles and then provides a list that includes a portal. Result obtained are likely to be largely useless.] 23:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::This is a valid point: How are the respondents being vetted? Is there a possiblity of creating a seperate page in userspace to ask these questions without clogging up the noticeboard? ] 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Just to respond to the above questions: Geni, we are using SurveyMonkey to host the survey, which is a common tool used in the research community. The articles/portals are selected using an algorithm which we will discuss more in the paper. RVTA, originally we targeted a randomly selected (by name) group of admins, but people told us to post here instead of to individual user pages. If the WP community has a better idea for a method for researchers to interact with the community, we'd definitely be interested in hearing it. Thanks! ] 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::If you use your own domain to host serveys people are going to tend to be less paranoid.] 21:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	A problem I see is that there is no way to ensure you are getting answers from administrators and editors, or trolls and passers-by. Anyone can do the survey and anyone can fill in whatever username they wish to impersonate. A better way might be to send e-mail messages with unique passwords. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	I just took the survey and the research methodology seems to be at best lacking. The articles one was asked to look at are clearly not randomly selected but the procedure they were selected by doesn't seem at all clear either. There were other issues I had but I don't want to taint the study by going into them now. ] 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and ] ==
	] moved ] tp ], one of the characters on the show. To me, at least, it's a pretty obvious case of vandalism, and I'd undo it, but I have no idea how to safely undo a page move. Thanks. -- ] 23:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	* I took care of it. All better. :) &ndash; ]] 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	** Thank you! -- ] 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] seems to be an imposter of ] in order to vandalize ] ==
	Basically, this account seems to have been created to vandalize the article ]. Round about the end of the school year last year there was a minor controversy surrounding that article. The new user duplicated the talk page and user page of the other user. Plus their only contribution besides their user page was the above mentioned article, and their only edit was to reinstate a non verifiable sentence that another single use account added.] 00:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	: It's either a mistake or an impostor. I blocked ], let's see what it has to say for itself. <b>]</b> 10:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== User Deleting comments. ==
	User "IrishGuy" insists on deleting comments; this has happened to several users over the course of the last week. I am not alone. This is Vandalism according to wikipedia policies. Despite warnings, he persists. Please do something to help preserve wikipedia.
	an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A75.8.108.201&diff=74816340&oldid=74815940
	:The comments I deleted on my own talk page were abusive comments from annoyed users whose article was deleted under AfD. This is well within the parameters of ] which states: ''Actively erasing '''non-harassing''' personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.'' Additionally, the user who posted this has been banned multiple times today for harassment and vandalism. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::It happened again: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A75.8.108.201&diff=74819025&oldid=74818455
	Nothing was erased on the page in question by myself, only by IrishGuy. I have never been banned from wikipedia and do not appreciate the libelous accusation. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else? Still, this does not exuse your vandalism of my comments. Administrators, I implore your to take decisive action against this vandal. Thank you.
	:Actually, neither of those link show me removing anything. , however, ''does'' show you removing a comment and claiming that I am responsible for removing comments. Also, is identical to the edits of other blocked users: , , . So yes, you ''have'' been blocked numerous times today. Please stop harassing me. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I thought I'd come by and say what I've seen. Irishguy has just been reverting nuisance messages, and I believe reverting the removal of legitimate warnings on sockpuppet IPs. 75.8.108.201 has a track record of leaving miscellaneous unsigned comments on talk pages, and then (for some unknown reason) removing or tampering with the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Unsigned}} tags. Since being told to stop their actions, 75.8.108.201 and suspected sockpuppets have attacked Irishguy (and now several other editors who've interviened in this case) by doing things like vandalising his User and User talk page. Also makes some wild accusations, such as Irish 'removing' messages in a previous edit and how 75.8.108.201 was going to be warning him shortly via the edit note. In that case, Irish was simply reverting the tampering with <nowiki>{{</nowiki>Unsigned}} --] <sup>(])</sup> 09:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	: Anon blocked for trolling. Nothing to see here, move along now... <b>]</b> 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I would just like to point out that this {{IPuser|75.8.107.95}} has done some recent vandalism too. ] 10:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Just another user trying to make life hard for admins, nothing new here. Basically per JzG.--<font style="background:white">]</font> 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] and Craigslist Privacy incident ==
	Jason Fortuny is the guy who posted a fake personal ad on Craigslist and then put the emails and photos he received in response on ED. I'm rather concerned about elements of the ED page - especially the victims' personal details and photos - making it into the article, considering the following this guy seems to have on ED and LJ. Personally, I'd love to go all rouge and just delete the thing as unencyclopedic, but I don't think it qualifies for a speedy. Anyone disagree, or barring that, anyone mind watchlisting? -- ] | ] 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I sent it to ]. ] 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: You did right. I nuked it. The ] concerns are pretty much insurmountable - there is ''no'' appropriately neutral and reliable source for an article on this person, and several people on the AfD pointed this out. With several experienced editors in agreement that no copliant article can be compiled from the available sources, killing it before the puppet theatre starts seemed the smart move. <b>]</b> 09:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::: I agree for now although I think this got mentioned on slashdot. However a mention on slashdot hardly constitues enough reliable sources to write an article anyways and it is hard to see how an essentially internet based phenomenon can count as notable with only one such reference. Between these problems and the ] issues this was a correct decision. ] 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I don't really agree with the protection of the page though. The story could still build you see, if say, someone visits Jason with a brick. I think salting the earth may be a bit premature, but it's suitable as a temporary measure until the "drama" dies down. This story has been picked up in ] ], and in numerous blogs such as Wired and Waxy.org. - ]]] 15:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Salting is overused, though warranted here. I'm sure there's a de-salting procedure in the event something drastic were to change. ] 16:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	*What's ED? - ]|] 21:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	**]. ] 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Endorse the speedy deletion. This was a serious privacy issue for many non-prominent people. ] 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	: See ] - the ED crowd are kicking up the usual fuss. <b>]</b> 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	*I'm not connected to ED in any way, and I disagree with the above characterization of the debate on DRV. When I looked for news sources, I found several meeting ] (including BBC News and the Associated Press), providing more than enough information to support a reasonable article about this person. Given that, I think it's entirely appropriate for people to "kick up a fuss" at DRV. If we're concerned about the privacy of the poor bastards who got caught in his sick little trap, then don't put any of their personal information in the article (and apply appropriate punishment to anyone who tries to add it). -]<sup>]</sup> 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	:* These are about a privacy incident not about a person. We can cover this with a paragraph in an article on online privacy, and that is no problem, but we have no sources ''about Jason Fortuny'', only sources which mention Jason Fortuny in the context of a privacy issue. This is also a perfect example of the proiblems caused by indecent haste to document things on The Internets - the Google index had not even seen those news sources when I searched yesterday. There being no deadline, why not wait and see how it pans out? <b>]</b> 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	::*A lack of verifiable info from reliable sources was the main issue raised at the AFD, and now that those sources are available, it seems reasonable to revisit the result of the discussion. If we need sources covering other aspects of Mr. Fortuny's life, there's no harm in adding what we have now and filling in the gaps later as the information becomes available. As for the Google news thing, Google is nice but it's not the be-all and end-all of info-tracking. If an article meets our policies and guidelines, Google's opinion shouldn't really factor into the decision. -]<sup>]</sup> 15:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I've commented at the deletion discussion, to which I would draw attention, and won't repeat myself here -- except to note that if this article were to come back, which I hope it won't, it will have to be continually monitored for privacy and legal issues, possibly by ]. Incivility in some of the comments on the DRV may also warrant admin attention. ] 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: William Pietri, one of my favourite purveyors of neutrality and civility in heated situations, has written this up in ]. I suggest a redirect and leave it at that for now. <b>]</b> 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::As noted, page will need to be monitored closely for privacy violations. ] 02:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	== "Sergei" username. ==
	Trying to create an account with username "Sergei" fails with error "Username entered already in use". But there is no user/talk/contribs page for Sergei. I'd like to register as Sergei, because it is my real name. Is there something that can be done about that? ] 08:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:That username is taken, you can always tell by typing in the user page (]), and if the 'User contributions' button is in the toolbox, the name is taken. There was discussion at ] about the subject so you might have better luck with it in the future. - ] 09:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::You (if you're reading this thread) could also register a variation, Sergei1 or SergeiX or whatever. ] 20:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Of course. I wonder now will script or whatever from ] be ever executed. The bug looks abandoned with the last comment dated July 23. That's sad :(. ] 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	Fred Bauder blocked {{vandal|Etaonsh}} for gross incivility, making an ongoing request for arbitration moot. I'd just like to register the fact that if he had not blocked, I would have. This user has a habit of calling others "nazis" in edit summaries, and of including uncited and highly biased content into articles. There being few if any redeeming edits, a discretionary block is entirely reasonable. I'm guessing Mgm would also have endorsed this. So: user indef-blocked, bringing here so that everyone knows and so that if we hear about further nonsense on {{article|Emil Kraepelin}} we'll know who it is and what to do about it. <b>]</b> 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	*Etaonsh was the username of the user who filed the RFAr with londheart as his signature. My comment in the RFAr should say how I thought about this user. I recommended the Arbcom to take the case, if they decide to block immediately, I'm fine with it. - ]|] 21:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== Mass editprotected interwiking required ==
	From ]:
	:Please, can somebody (an administrator) add the interwikis to this kind of templates (selected anniversaries templates) if it is possible? Only the month of january yet. I would do it myself but it's impossible. The interwiki of this day is ''<nowiki>]'' and the next days are similar; only changes the number (''<nowiki>], <nowiki>]... ...<nowiki>]''). ]. Thanks in advance. If there are any trouble, my talk page is always open for questions. ]&nbsp;&middot;&nbsp;] 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
	I'm not too keen on continually doing these edits by hand, so does anyone else have a suggestion on how we can do this, or are we too scared to give a bot +sysop strictly for interwiking editprotected pages and have it switched on only when required? -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	== WikiSearch - why not? ==
	Hello
	Would it make sense to include a new search utility run by users?For instance,all relevent search results from search engines(google,yahoo..) could be added by the user along with contextual information.This would help other users looking for such a link. Are there any copyright implications in posting links found from commercial search engines.I think this would be a good source for non-commercial search that users have found useful.
	Regards
	MikeSam <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>
	:If this was to be a WikiMedia project, would be a better place to propose it. And, yes, search companies do hold copyright on their results. And this idea, in part, already exists as (not a WikiMedia site). But keep up the generation of ideas and thanks! ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 18:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:: Hm, just curious; how does ] () stay around? (or do they pay for the service?) —]]] 18:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::AFAIK, a ] isn't infringing the database rights of the original database so long as the originating database is credited. This would be similar to our ] in images. But a search engine that, for instance, provided a frontend for Google results and reported nothing but Google results back, but didn't credit them and had no further use other than to do so would not be fair use. Certainly search engines could ask to be excluded, and meta searches could refuse to do so, but it would all end up in court. But like "fair use" on images, so far it hasn't happened. IANAL. The use of the logos on Dogpile suggests a contract, though. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 19:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::Database rights are a concept that exists in Europe but which is not mirrored in the US. The US does not allow copyright to be applied to mechanically generated collections or organizations of factual information. If you live in the US you would be entirely within your rights to simply parrot the URLs returned by Google (though you might get in trouble if the presentation of your results stylistically imitated Google, or your actions gave the impression of being sanctioned by them). More likely Google would just block you for running too many queries. I have no idea what specific arrangements Dogpile may have made, however. ] 19:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	==Khoikhoi's probation rescinded==
	Khoikhoi's probation, a remedy imposed in the Aucaman arbitration, has been rescinded by the Arbitration Committee .
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	For the arbitration committee. --] 18:53, 10 September 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 ].
	==Freestylefrappe limited to one account==
	Freestylefrappe, who has been disruptive since he was desysopped, is limited henceforth to editing from one account .
			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 ].}}
	For the Arbitration Committee. --] 18:53, 10 September 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)
			== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
	== AfD not completed ==
			I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
	The ] shows that closing consensus was to merge with Apostasy...but that never happened. That was a few months ago. Did something change? <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 19:27, 10 September 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.
	:Probably nothing changed, but no one ever bothered to do it. Feel free to do the merge yourself. ] | ] 19:33, 10 September 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.
	::I'm not an admin. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::You don't have to be.--] 19:43, 10 September 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.
	::::If there's a clear consensus for anything on AfD (other than a delete, and then only for tool-having reasons) then carry out the consensus. Every user ''should'' be acting like an admin in general edits, so acting like one in AfD etc is good too. It also proves trustworthiness in tool-having, which is the main criterion (other users' mileage may differ) for being given the tools. When users nominate for a speedy delete, they should be acting as an admin - given a different universe, they would be deleting the article; if something is reported to ] that can be dealt with without tools, then users should deal with it - given a different universe, they would be dealing with it.
			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?
	::::Adminship is all about the tools and nothing whatsoever about anything else. We have useless users and useless admins. We have very good users who are admins and very good users who aren't. We have people who need the tools for what they do here and users who don't need them. Adminship '''is no big deal'''. If it's an "admin job" but doesn't need admin tools, then it's an "editor job" - and can and should be done by anyone. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
			<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
	:::::OK. I merged the content and redirected ] to ]. I just didn't want to step on any toes so I wanted to make sure this was something I was legitimately able to do. Thanks. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	==new topic: can we have a more informative rollback choice?==
			: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)
	I assume most of us revert vandalism using the rollback choice but you notice it leaves no explanation of the reason. There are a few other categories of "rollback on sight", such as removing linkspam or removing personal info or removing personal attack or removing edit by banned person. I am sure a few others might occur to people. Is anyone else in favor of asking the developers for a choice of, say, 5 or 6 rollback buttons that function like the present one but put a brief explanatory phrase in the edit summary? ] 20:13, 10 September 2006 (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)
	:If it's anything other than vandalism, rollback isn't appropriate. I'm sure we've all broken that rule now and again, but to be honest, it's generally a good one. If you need to undo an edit for any other reason than vandalism, then you need to manually explain whay you're doing. Doing so will also help you think twice about reverting in the first place. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 20:23, 10 September 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)
			:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
	A related question, what can be done for admins who continuously use rollback for reverts during edit disputes, and other cases where no obvious vandalism/link spam etc has occurred? I have tried politely requesting them in such cases, but most of the time, the offending admin simply ignores and does it again and again. --] 20:26, 10 September 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)
	:I would suggest not doing anything, since there is nothing wrong with doing so. ]|] 20:29, 10 September 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)
	::There is of course problems in abusing admin features in edit disputes. According to ], ''Do not use one-click rollback on edits that are not simple vandalism; please revert manually with an appropriate edit summary.''. --] 20:34, 10 September 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)
	:::If an admin repeatedly uses the rollback feature to get the upper hand in an edit war they should first be reported for violating 3RR or the spirit of the rule if appropriate, then send to arbcom if they keep ignoring requests not to. - ]|] 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
			::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Incivility at ] ==
	:::I cannot see how using rollback is any different from leaving a blank or uninformative edit summary. 3RR is already taken care of. There is already guidance to not describe a good-faith edit as vandalism. Misusing one's position as an admin is understood to be wrong no matter what mechanism is used. How is using the rollback button worse than leaving as a summary "restored NPOV"? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:07, 11 September 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)
	:I'm not sure if the interface clutter is worth the trouble. Rollback is, in the vast majority of cases, used where the reason for its use is obvious. If an editor is confused or perplexed about why an admin used rollback in a particular circumstance, a polite talk page request usually clears matters right up. For admins (or other editors, for that matter) who would like more specific or more customizable rollback buttons, my understanding is that there are any number of homebrew scripts available for download these days. ](]) 21:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
			:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Yes, I know, we don't do that with edit wars, etc. So where can I find a "homebrew script" that would let me make a small menu of edit summaries for rollback? ] 02:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
			:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
			:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
			:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Admin rollback has always been for vandalism only. If admins are making an edit decision, they should do it manually like everyone else, and leave an edit summary to explain the edit (which rollback can't do). This is for good communication with other editors. Past discussions about this feature have been unambiguous. ] 07:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	::All points agreed as above. This is about how, not when and whether. I am suggesting/requesting a measure to increase ease and detail of communication for those rollbacks that do not warrant a talk page discussion but might not look like obvious vandalism. I am one of those editors who feel a much stronger conversation obligation to named users with accounts than to anon IPs but would like to leave a more informative message than the automatic "reverted". Please don't repeat the points already stipulated, thanks. ] 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	== On usernames... again ==
			*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Request removal of PMR/Rollback ==
	Ok, fine, I'll work for getting Reformed Vandal when I'm a more established editor... to get started on this I've been doing some useful work on random articles tonight, and am going to patrol rc for a bit after posting this message. Anyway, users Dave and David both exist, but neither have done ''anything''. May I please have one of these usernames? I really want to have a proper username so that everything I do can be associated with me, but at the same time am pretty picky about the username itself. ] 22:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Flags removed ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>] ] 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Maybe David and an initial? ] 22:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
			:{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::If the accounts haven't made an edit, maybe a 'crat could clear the way for you. ]] 22:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:::Would be handy - do I just wait here for a bureaucrat to read it, or do I do something else? ] 22:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::I'm not too sure about the exact details, I'm copying and pasting this to ]. ]] 22:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	Actually, I suggest you go to ] and ask if it's possible to do such a thing. I wish I knew more/could be a better help. ]] 22:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Thank you for your help - I've put a request up ] 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I've had a request pending since 2004. :( ] (]) 13:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
	== ] on ] ==
			{{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)
	'''Advocate Required''' In an article i.e. ], there is section for noteable Marwats. Whenever I tried to enter the most noteable personalities, the artcile was reverted, as there are 2-3 who are personally opossite to the tribe of those person whom I mention. I can also provide evidence and proofs of their personal enimity and the reason of deletion. Here, I must tell you that oenof the entries I add is an Ex-President, Ex-Chairmn Senate, Ex-Minister, Ex-Chief Justice of the country. If he is deleted from noteable personalities so who have place in that article God? This clearly proves that the article is always reverted on personal enimity.
			{{abot}}
			== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
	* ''''''Actually''' it should have been me to report ] for his consistent vandalizing of the article ].''' It was in response to my request that an administrator ] initialized full protection on this page due to his blatant vandalization. This user, who frequently logs on to Misplaced Pages as an anonymous editor under IP Address ] or as a Sock ] has even tried to delete my AFD Tag from an article on ] (as per Misplaced Pages’s policy I warned him for doing so on his talk page). He has also tried to become personal with me by inviting me to chat with him on MSN (he provided his MSN ID batgram786@hotmail.com and which I ignored for obvious reasons). Additionally he has been inconsiderate of all other editors who have voted Delete on a AFD Debate on ] and had tried to pass personal remarks. This user was repeatedly asked by me to provide sources of his preposterous claims but he never came up with any. Finally as per Misplaced Pages's policy I merged/redirected his two line entry on ] (a sub clan of ]) with the main article of ] but he recreated the same and which is now pending for a decision by the editors for deletion/merging/redirecting. He was also requested to discuss his additions on the discussion page on ] but he turned personal. He has been consistently trying to produce vanity pages and it is my humble opinion to block this user from Misplaced Pages. -- ] 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::Copied & Pasted from the ] page. This is more of an "admin needed" that anything else. -]<small>(])(])</small> 00:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to ] due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is . In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at ] where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to {{U|Alex Shih}} who implemented the topic ban in the first place . ]] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more ]. ] ] 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse lifting TBAN per above. ] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban per ]. ] (]) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages ==
	== Broken AFD categories ==
			{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:
			=== Evidence ===
	This proposal calls for a template to be added each debate in order to categorise it. {{tl|afd2}} was edited in order to carry this out, however it was decided to place the categorisation template above the heading. The result of this is that when one clicks the edit link beside a heading on an AfD day page (which I presume is how most admins begin to close debates), one brings up section 1 of the debate page (everything under the heading), but not section 0 (the lead) which is where the template is.
			1. – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.
			2.
	The end result is that for every AfD started between and , closers will have to use the edit link from the AfD day page, then click the "project page" tab in the top left (or the "cancel" link below the edit window), and ''then'' click the edit tab again to edit the whole page.
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.
			3.
	Note that this proposal has been implemented without updating any of the documentation for closing admins either, so if someone would like to do that ]. --] (]) 02:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.
			4.
	:That is a very good point, and explains why I didn't notice the categories. I use AFD Helper to nominate and click the header edit link to close, as you say, which also means the article name appears redlinked in the RC list if the article is deleted, which is nicely informative. <b>]</b> 12:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			- After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated ] for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the ]. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.
			5.
	::It won't break the system if you change {{]}} (in fact, that's already been done) to reorder the tag (saying this as tech author of the system), and that would probably make it easier for closers. (I'd forgotten the way that AfD's edit links worked, and thought it would be more visible above the title...oops...) I've already created a bot to detag any AfDs that admins missed and am awaiting approval, and it's hardly an urgent problem anyway. --] 12:40, 11 September 2006 (]]])
			- The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.
			] (]) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.
	== Week-old AfD ==
			6. List affected articles: ], ], etc.
	I don't know if this is the right place to request this, but could an admin take a look at ] and make a decision on it? It's been open for over a week, and after discounting the sizable number of meatpuppet votes, there appears (at least in my view) a consensus to delete. Is there's a reason this one hasn't been touched yet (sheer size of the debate, someone more experienced doesn't feel there's a consensus, or some other problem)? —] <font size="1"> <nowiki>] | ]<nowiki>]</nowiki></font> 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Closed. ] 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you so much. —] <font size="1"> <nowiki>] | ]<nowiki>]</nowiki></font> 04:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			=== Context ===
	== ] ==
			- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today.
			- I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.
			I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
	Just a heads up: I'm sure I can't be the only one that dislikes the arbitrary {{tl|talkheader}} and the clutter it adds to talk pages. We have a Mediawiki message available to us (]) which is only displayed when a talk page is edited, making it the ideal place to store such a message - why have thousands of transclusions in the database when we can use this message? Currently however that message is empty. Please join me at ] to discuss implementing this message space and getting rid of talkheader. --] 08:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice-->. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.
			] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
	== Request for review ==
			:First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in ]. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our ] before resuming editing. ] 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	It will be pretty obvious here that I am sick and tired of this particular argument, nonetheless the other party has asked for an external opinion, so here goes.
			::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
			:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
			:*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
			:*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
			:*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
			:*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ]&nbsp;] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ]&nbsp;] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of ] going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. ]] 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	A website, fisheaters dot com, was spam blacklisted, see ]. This followed a brief but intense edit war by the site owner, then using ], over a large number of links to her site. Since then the site owner has spent many hours arguing for the blacklisting to be lifted. During this time I have no evidence that she has added actual content, her sole intent appears to be to add links, not information. I can't see much evidence of adding of the site owner actual content before then, either, although she asserts that she did so, because for most of her time on Misplaced Pages she has not used an account, for whatever reason.
			While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing '''my''' pages" ('''emphasis''' added). {{ping|NovembersHeartbeat}}, I would strongly advise that you read ], ], ], and ]. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to ] as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but ]. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. ] (]) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	The final catalyst for blacklisting was the addition of a link to a mirror of a document which is hosted and freely available on the Vatican website, which is the original and authoritative source for that document. This was added (as were most of the links) by an anon, whether the site owner or one of her forum members or some other person I cannot tell. The blacklisting was approved and subsequently confirmed several times based largely on my evidence - the meta spam blacklist talkpage is not I think often visited by anyone other than a few admins and people trying to get thier sites delisted.
			{{abot}}
			== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
	Fsheaters is a ] site, supporting a minority point of view within the Roman Catholic Church. It is not the official site of any known organisation. It is not linked with any identified authority. The largest "trad" Catholic organisation is the ], and we link to their site on various articles. There are a small number of historied editors who share this minority position, and they are active on the article ]. There are occasional amusing moments of dispute on articles such as ], where it is asserted that the failure to take a supposed ] renders recent primacies invalid. But this is an aside. Suffice it to say that this site, although it contains some good content, espouses a minority POV. Some at least of the good content is available elsewhere.
			{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.
			However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
	As far as I can tell the site is run by a single, unidentified individual (or perhaps a small group of individuals), with no known or provable authority, which supports a minority viewpoint, which was linked to a very large number of articles by the site owner and members of the site's forums, where the site owner conducted a bitter edit war over removal of said links, where an agreement to "a few" links was used as an opportunity to constantly reinterpret "few" upwards, where links were added with misleading link titles (e.g. Catholic view of ''foo'', not Traditionalist Catholic view of ''foo'') and with misleading edit summaries. I can find no credible evidence that the site owner intends to beenfit the project by adding information, only links to her site. Discussions tend to follow a similar pattern of her repeating that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong, that ] did not say avoid links to your own site when they were originally added, that I am an evil ], that I bear a grudge, etc. etc. And generally they descend to trolling once she realises that endlessly repeating the same arguments is not going tohave a different result where I am concerned. Apparently this is founded not in my well-known disloike of spammer, but in some personal animus towards this minority group of Catholics of whom I had never heard prior to the December 2005 edit war.
			Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.
	Nonetheless, she has requested yet again that her site be removed, and has asked that some "independent third party" review the request. Since I am now sick to the back teeth of the endless argumentation and offsite attacks, such as www.fisheaters.com/evangelize.html and www.fisheaters.com/wikipedia2.html, I would like to know if perhaps I ''am'' being unreasonable, or alternatively whether there is more widespread support and we can send her packing. The debate is at ]. <b>]</b> 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	*If they can't keep a discussion civil, but instead resort to off-wiki attacks, I think that's clear evidence they're just spamming, not trying to improve the wiki. - ]|] 22:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Fix "The Covenant" pages ==
			: This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. ] (]) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm afraid I made a bit of a mess. I saw that the page for ] discussed a group of science fiction characters, and I thought that since a movie of that name is currently in theaters, that title should go to a redirect page. I moved ] to ], where I think it is now, but when I looked at the "What Links Here" page (yes, I should have done that first), I saw that ] had previously existed, and in fact still is pointed to by many links. However, I cannot now move the main page to ] because the redirect pages no longer have only one line in the page history (this is also my fault, as I had the erroneous idea that moving ] to a temporary name ] would make room for the main page to go there; I see now that this was entirely mistaken).
			:I'm not sure what you mean {{tq|without any explanation}} as his clearly documents his reason as {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR}}. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: ] or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at ] and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. ]&thinsp;] 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. ] (]) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Emoji redirect ==
	I don't want to do cut-and-paste moves, but I don't think I have the authority to clean up the mess I've made. The result I would think is best is that 1) ] be moved to ], 2) the temporary page ] be deleted altogether, and 3) ] contain a redirect to ]. I apologize for my bumbling. --] 14:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:I'm putting the right assortment of tags on the page to get the move done (I'm not an admin). --] 14:45, 11 September 2006 (]]])
			Was trying to create ] as a redirect to ]; the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the ] aka the ]. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Now tagged. It seems that this sort of thing happens often enough that there's an assortment of speedy tags ready for just such a situation (I've used G6 and G7 here). --] 14:48, 11 September 2006 (]]])
	:::(By the way, cut-and-paste moves would have made the situation even worse, because then the history would have to be figured out as well.) --] 14:49, 11 September 2006 (]]])
	::::I at least knew that much. :) --] 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::The move has now been sorted out. --] 15:09, 11 September 2006 (]]])
			:{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	I've sorted all this out now. --] (]) 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:Thank you. Looks great. --] 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			== Topic ban appeal ==
	==]==
	On September 9, 2006, I closed the ] for this category as "speedy keep" <blockquote>due to unanimous consensus to retain categories which index articles that contain unreferenced material, as a result of which this category . No justification has been offered for renominating this category for deletion so soon after the DRV result.</blockquote>
	Apparently dissatisfied with the representativeness of the editors who participated in the deletion review, ] , and wrote on my talk page. Since the deletion review recently resolved this issue, and since having categories repeatedly nominated for deletion, deleted, then restored as a result of deletion reviews disrupts the usability of these categories, reclosing of the ] for ] might be advisable. ] 15:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Hmmm. More needless disputation. It's not going to get consensus for deletion, so I closed it again. <b>]</b> 17:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Community Probations? ==
			: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)
	This is something that came up at ] (and I don't have anyone in particular in mind, just the general idea)... we've got the occasional community ''ban'' sometimes discussed on this noticeboard. So how would people feel about community ''probation''? It's a bit like ArbCom probation - the intent is to allow us a lightweight way to tell ] to stay away from ] for the next month or so. This would be useful if that Someone was in general a useful editor but is going bonkers on one particular subject. ] 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
			*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
			*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
			*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
	: What is ]? More granular community remedies (probations, paroles, article and topical bans, etc) are going to happen sooner rather than later. We're just waiting for a suitable test case. --] 18:16, 11 September 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)
	:FWIW, I tried a community probation (on releasing an indefblock) with an editor back in May 2006 that ended up badly (editor is currently again indefblocked) but there wasn't any specific articles that they were banned from as conditions of it. ] 18:28, 11 September 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 ==
	:Sounds good. We can already do community bans; community probations and community article bans are actually less severe, and could help to keep around good editors who are just incapable of NPOV on a certain narrow topic range. --] 18:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
			- caused many edit wars <br/>
			- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
			- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
			- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
			I request that the user is warned.
			] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
	:This is already possible. Here's how it works: Admin sees Problem User disrupting an article. Admin tells Problem User to stop disruption. Perfect world: Problem User stops disrupting. Real world: Problem User continues. Admin blocks Problem User. Admin makes offer to Problem User: "stop editing that article and you'll be unblocked". This happens regularly and we don't need to formalise it. If we can avoid formalising, we do. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
			'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
			'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
			'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
			'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
			<br/>
			I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
			:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
	::The only problem is making it stick. ] ] 18:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*We don't need a separate policy, it can be included in the blocking or banning policy. A little support of the arbcom in this would probably help. If they support it, there's no need to go to RFAr. I would restrict executing probations to uninvolved admins, after multiple users (unrelated to the subject) have shown they believe the user's editing to be tendentious. Perhaps following an RFC? - ]|] 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of ] at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)|Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions}}. ] (]/]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Cannot draftify page ==
	::: It's clue-based adminship, and I'm all for it. No need to write it down, we ''know'' that some people are OK as long as they avoid some subjects, and some people should be politely shown the door. It's only when it's ambiguous that we need ArbCom. The current Arbustoo / Vivaldi dispute, and the Sathya Sai Baba dispute, are good examples: it's not open and shut, and many good-faith edits are involved. The project is pretty mature now, some people are arriving with the intent of causing trouble, and we can see them a mile off. <b>]</b> 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	::::Something along these lines ] by ] regarding a user posting on ]. There was a consensus to ban a user from posting to ANI for a period of time. I don't see why this same logic couldn't be applied elsewhere. ''(]])'' 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::She also banned someone from ] and subpages for a while once. She is a rogue admin and/or ahead of her time. Obviously this is something we can do. &mdash;] (]) 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
			:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Remove PCR flag ==
	:I believe community-based probations and community-approved compulsory mentorship is a good thing. In my opinion it maybe useful for such users as ], ], ] etc. as an alternative to the long blocks and permabans. ] 23:52, 11 September 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 ==
	== How did I do a bot edit, I'm not a bot? ==
			{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			== Problem with creating user talk page ==
			{{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)
	Somehow I managed to do a bot edit, but I'm not an admin, or a bot, or anything special.
			: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 reverted vandalism on the ] page, but my revert doesn't show up in the . Recalling that adding ''&bot=1'' shows bot edits, I did that myself to make and suddenly my edit shows up. (it's at 02:25 9 September 2006)
			::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 ==
	I didn't do anything special, no tools, no scripts, no VandalProof, no popups, nothing. I just went to the previous version before the vandalism, hit Edit, filled in the edit summary with rvv and a description, and hit save.
			] from the past month (December 2024).
	I am mystified as to why that edit only shows in the history when &bot=1 is present. ] 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	: Both links show the same result for me. Edits by bots do show up in page histories. (e.g. Orphanbot ) ] 21:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	:: Try to ] or add ''&action=purge'' to the end of the URL (though I'm not sure whether page histories have the purge functionality). —]]] 21:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
	:::bot edits are only hidden in special:recent changes. They should always show up in the page history. ] 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
	It looks like the cache was it. I didn't realize that refresh could still pull up a cached page and that holding the CTRL key overrides that. Thanks ] 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	== Harrassment by ] ==
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	Can some admin please review the harrassment by ] on ] and his repeated allegations that I am a sock of another user. I've kind of been on a hiatus here editing so I don't know why I'm even involved in this. I'd block myself, but I'm sort of involved (though I don't know how). ] 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
	:I can confirm that this guy is a problem. He is in mediation with ] over something or other; Publicola is an admitted second account created to push a particular editing style as an "experiment." Scribner is convinced Pepsidrinka is the master account, and that ] is another sock. A ] request was declined; in my opinion based on the request and on a discussion with Scribner on my talk page it was misleadingly filed as well. I tried to explain that even if Pepsidrinka ''was'' Publicola's master account, they haven't edited the same things so there is no violation. I would suggest a final warning to desist with a civility block the next step, but as a !admin, I'd rather not warn him without the muscle to back it up. ] 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
			|]
	::heh, i'll warn him about it. He needs one. ''']''' ]|] 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] ]
			</div>
	== ] ==
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
			] '''Oversight changes'''
	This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. ] and ] are placed on probation and may be banned for appropriate periods from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Should any user placed on Probation under this ruling violate any ban imposed under this decision, they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at ].
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			</div>
	For the Arbitration Committee. - ]|] 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	== Speedy deletion backlog ==
			* 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'''
	There is currently quite a backlog of several hundered categories, articles, and images for speedy deletion (including a couple of attack pages). Admin attention would be appreciated. Thanks! ] 15:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
			* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
			] '''Miscellaneous'''
	==Request for block of self==
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
	Would an administrator do me the favor of blocking my account for a period of one year? Seriously. It would be much appreciated, as I do not need the distraction right now, and I am sorely lacking in moderation. ] 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	:That used to be done with regularity (and some admins used to do it to themselves), but with the increased number of users and the problems with the ], this is rarely done anymore. While other admins may disagree with me, I strongly suggest that you apply self-discipline instead of resorting to a block that may result in collateral damage on other users. --] ] 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I have successfully achieved the desired result by entering a local IP as an entry in the hosts file for en.wikipedia.org. ] 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::There is also a ] that would do the trick. ] (]) 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
			----
	== User Categories ==
			{{center|{{flatlist|
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->
			== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
	I just found out about ]... apparently our bots are choking on the sheer amount of "user" or "Wikipedian" categories to be renamed or deleted. We presently have categories for users who like every known piece of software, every conceivable sports team, and any type of food you can name. A quick scan of ] shows about 5600 of them. I can pretty much bear their existence by ignoring them, but the fact that they are clogging up our CFD process is definitely a Bad Thing. My first thought would be to ask a dev to ''DELETE * FROM wi_categories WHERE name LIKE "user*"''; but perhaps somebody here has a better solution? ] 21:38, 12 September 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.
	: User pages are of such negligible utility, and are a never-ending source of diversionary problems unrelated to the encyclopedia (and frequently related to trivial, selfish, and malicious uses that mostly arise from people willfully mistaking Misplaced Pages for Angelfire or MySpace) that you should change your proposed SQL query to zap not the user page categories, but the user pages themselves. -- ] | ] 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I think we're here to build an encyclopedia, not share hobbies, interests and personal preferences through the category system. But then we're still having this fight over userboxes. I'd gladly delete the lot, userpages should be the only space for personal expression but it would take a Jimbo edict to ram that through, the community is so fractured now. Talk to that dev quick. ] <small>]</small> 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	:There might be a whole lot more queued up for deletion if this nomination - ] - is successful. --] 22:25, 12 September 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 ].
	:Its not like deleting / renaming user categories is actually important. I'd still go with mostly ignoring the problem. Just shove the user categories aside and deal with them when people get around to it, which is mostly what happens now, as I understand it. Or one could recruit more people to run cat bots. ] 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I like Radiant's first thought, except that the language ones are actually useful, as are some of the knowledge specialities. If we could keep those, and delete the rest... pizza eating is not relevant, nor is liking a certain type of music. One puppy's opinion. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
	:: Agree with KillerChihauhua. On a related note someone a while ago brought up the notion of having another space for user:categories. That might make the more trivial user categories more tolerable and even if we only keep a few of them would still be good since these cats blur the line between article space and user space. ] 01:23, 13 September 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''
	:As someone who does a LOT of discussion closing at CFD, I'd be perfectly happy with jettisoning the whole mess. It just takes up too much time and resources to deal with, even with all of them lumped on one page. If people want to have their userboxes, I really don't care, but I don't think a category is needed for every single one of them (save ''maybe'' the language ones). --] 02:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
	*Radiant!, for your information, I believe you were on your 7+ month long wikibreak when these type of categories were first created. They were originally started to keep track of which users were using what userbox (e.g. ] lists every Wikipedian who has {{]}} on his or her user page. ] ] 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
	:*Why did we need to keep track? Wouldn't a what links here work? I'm still not clear why we need to know that some wikipedians eat apples. I have no objection to being told that on a user's page, but I'm unsure how the grouping of such users through the category system helps the Misplaced Pages. Would we eventually have to kill all users who eat apples, and this is the hit list? ] <small>]</small> 10:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
	::I believe that the idea is so that apple-eaters can find other apple eating editors on wikipedia, which will result in lots of wiki-love through people's shared love of apples. ] 14:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
	:::Lol. Is that so? I'd better withdraw the nomination then... On second thoughts... no! ;) --] 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
	::::On reflection, I think it's so that we can check their bias when editing articles about apples. Any chance someone could quickly run a comparison and see if any of them '''have''' actually edited articles regarding apples before they catch wind of it and game the system? :) ] <small>]</small> 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::*Well, at least we can't compare those to the Wikipedians who like oranges... ] 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	*OK, since I'm the person who's been doing most of the nominating of these things, let me speak up in defense of the approach of just getting it out of the way. When I got there, there were hundreds of user categories that were named like mainspace categories (], for example). There was a clear consensus to put "Wikipedians" in the title of all of them, so there wouldn't be any confusion. But this led to other questions: If Wikipedian was needed for several hundred categories, wouldn't it be better if there was no confusion whatsoever about how categories should be named? And thus the long nominations, which some have welcomed and others have despised. My thought is this: Let's get it all out of the way now, then (as I've proposed elsewhere) move it to its own renaming process so that those who do care can take care of it. I think it's worth it to run through the last sets of categories and then deal with wiping out entire sections if that's the consensus. Hope that helps.--] 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	In my view, the problem is simply that the ''Category:'' namespace has to cover too many bases. The ''Category:'' namespace should be purely for ''encyclopedic'' categorisation of ''articles''. A ''User category:'' namespace would be helpful with the immediate problem being discussed here. While we're at it, we could have a ''Misplaced Pages category:'' namespace for admin categories, such as ] and its sub categories. By extension, I think I'm suggesting a category scheme for each namespace (Image: categorisation, Template: categorisation, MediaWiki: categorisation and Help: categorisation all seem to me to be non-encyclopedic, but potentially useful). I just float this as it occurs to me: does anyone think this is a good idea, one that could be suggested tentatively to developers? --] &#9836; ] 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Okay'''. For the time being, I have moved all User categories into ]. I hope that will help. ] 17:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	**I'm not sure how it ''helps'' - isn't it just hiding them away in a cesspool of a Misplaced Pages page so we can pretend they don't exist? --] 19:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	***That's the approach that worked for userboxes, right...? ;) -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	****Precisely so, it's a rather British way of doing things I suppose. Anyway, I'm just getting started with creating my user page, and userboxes are terribly good at allowing me to expand it with very little effort. I've yet to be contacted by someone that shares the esoteric hobby of eating at burger king occassionally, but there's hope yet and the only way they're going to find me is by retaining the categories. ] 22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	*****Isn't that a bit '']''? At the risk of coming across as a ] or a ], the ''whole point'' of this discussion is that your contacting fellow burger afficionados is not Misplaced Pages's purpose<span style="font-family:courier">:-)</span> --] &#9836; ] 09:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	*****Yes I suppose it is a bit British, and I'm all for hiding my head in the sand when things go wrong :), so - Support! :) --] 09:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			---
	Time to just start deleting useless user categories. There's way too many of them to try running through CFD, and it really is distracting CFD from its encyclopedic purpose. --] 23:42, 13 September 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.
	* Agreed. --] &#9836; ] 09:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			* 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)
	== Spamming/botting? ==
			: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)
	I noticed the following on the alerts board and think it's meritorious. Cutting and pasting:
			::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			Reposted above from archive, see ]
	* {{vandal|LordByronKing}} has been systematically making changes that lead me to believe he has an agenda, and may also be using a ] due to the manner and duration of his contributions. By manner, I specifically am referring to the fact that he makes about ten small changes to an article within approx. 1 min. of eachother, then moves on to a related topic and does the same thing. On Sept. 11, LordByronKing made changes almost every minute (a few times there were lapses between 3-5 min long) for the period of about five hours. -21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Agreed. Many of these seem like attempts to raise the name presence of a single author and to capitalize phrases used in articles into correspondence with the title of that author's book. Smells like a form of spam? ] 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
	:I have removed a lot of his spam, and have warned him, expect to see me get attacked. ]|] 02:15, 14 September 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)
	== Is this a copyvio? ==
			:::::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)
	] contains a huge (>250k) pile of information, all in comments, and presumably a copyvio. Any action need taking? ] 23:16, 12 September 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)
	:Not any more it doesn't. Nevertheless, what is policy? (See history of that article to see what I mean) ] 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	::See ]. ] 11:21, 13 September 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)
	== A few Usernames that should be Blocked ==
			: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)
	*]
	*]
	:Vandalism only accounts, and from the usernames. -]<small>(])(])</small> 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Done. —<span style="font: small-caps 14px times; color: red;">] (])</span> 01:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	::Use ] next time, this is obvious stuff. ]] 02:24, 13 September 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)
	== Major Backlog at ] ==
			*: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)
	FYI, there is a huge backlog at ]. I've taken care of quite a few move requests over the past half hour, but my current semi-wikibreak, as well as my inability to take care of many of the moves, prevents from doing more. Perhaps several admins with time on their hands could tackle the situation. Thanks in advance. -- ''']''' 01:24, 13 September 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)
	:Workin' on it. But if others want to help, dive right in folks :)--]<sup>]</sup> 07:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	:I'll do a few, as I just haven't been yelled at enough lately for administrative decisions. Also, I have yet to be called a Nazi or fascist. -- ] 02:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	::LOL! I love admin humor. :) From what I see though, it's relatively uncontroversial stuff. It's a little like closing AfD votes. --]<sup>]</sup> 04:06, 14 September 2006 (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=]}}.
	== Vandalized image revisions ==
			:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
			{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
	{{li|P11 kasparov breakout.jpg}} contains a number of revisions which have been vandalized. The small U.S. flag has been replaced with a Nazi flag. The revisions in question are those which are sized 498&times;304. The current revision is fine, but the others should probably be removed, as this is a fair-use promotional image from IBM. <span style="font-family:serif;">&mdash;]✰]</span> 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
	:They're gone now. Thanks for the heads-up. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}
			:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Fake User Assistance ==
			::* 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.
	] created a fake user: ]. It has been there since March 10th. Unless I'm missing something, this should be deleted. Thank you. --] 22:53, 13 September 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 ==
	:Thanks for spotting that. It's zapped. -- ] (]) 22:57, 13 September 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)
	::Oh, BTW, that was't a fake username. Templar34 had just changed his name and the original was never removed. My mistake. --] 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::But using the names of celebrities is a no-no. ]|] 02:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Yeah. Even if he changed his name from it, leaving the (defunct) celebrity-named user page around is undesirable. It's all still good. -- ] (]) 02:50, 14 September 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)
	==Karwynn==
			::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)
	* {{user5|Karwynn}}
			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)
	Karwynn showed up a few months back, and was involved in trying to push material attacking MONGO onto Misplaced Pages, for which I blocked him. More recently he's resumed trollish behavior, including edit. Enough's enough. Time to invite Karwynn to go and troll elsewhere. --] 23:31, 13 September 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 ==
	This is long overdue. Now there's only one ED troll left who hasn't been blocked yet ... ] 23:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.
	: I'm leaning towards endorsing this block but I'm not completely convinced. Karwynn has been disruptive but has also tried to contribute. Possibly unblock the user with the promise to only edit in article space for some set amount of time? ] 23:44, 13 September 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>
	:Who's the only "ED troll" left? &mdash;] 23:45, 13 September 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)
			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)
	::None other than Badlydrawnjeff, I suppose... ] 23:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Probably. --] <small>]</small> 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	: Feel free to adjust duration or lift this block. My usual block principles apply. Fully reviewable and I've no objection to alteration. --] 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			::Moved per request] 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. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
			:::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
			:::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
			:::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
			:::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] backlog doin' great ==
	::I don't think this block makes sense as a preventative measure. This user "showed up" 6 months ago and has 2000+ edits. The edit cited was not a good idea on Karwaynn's part, but after Nandesuka changed it, Karwynn agreed to a compromise which they apparently both were happy with. I think an indef block with no warning is a bit much. &mdash;] 23:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
			I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.
	::: I wasn't actually "happy" with it, but I was busy and figured someone ''else'' would block him for being disruptive and incivil. I thought that my little performance art on his page should have been enough to get the message across, but he insisted on replacing the insults, which told me that this was going nowhere fast. So I let it drop. While one can agree or disagree with Tony's block, claiming that Karwynn wasn't warned is pretty disingenuous, given that his edit summaries indicate that he full well knew just how rude and disruptive he was being.
	::: I'm not inclined to second guess Tony in this particular matter. ] 00:08, 14 September 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)
	:::: I don't know what you mean that "his edit summaries indicate that he full well knew just how rude and disruptive he was being." Could you cite one? And, I think it should be noted that Tony was involved in a ] with Karwynn yesterday.&mdash;] 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::: I'm not aware of having responded to Karwynn's trolling lately. Apologies if it should turn out that I have. --] 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: You're not aware of a conversation you had less than 24 hours ago, and most recently commented in one minute ago? And, for the record, disagreement is not "trolling". &mdash;] 00:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::: My apologies. When you said I had been "involved in a heated discussion" with Karwynn, I thought you meant that I had engaged in discussion with him. I see now that you merely mean that he and I both contributed to the same discussion thread. --]
	:::::::: I'm fuzzy on the distintion between engaging in discussion with someone and both contributing to the same discussion thread. Are you saying it wasn't a discussion because you never to him? &mdash;] 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::: I'm saying it wasn't a discussion because I didn't give his trolling the time of day. --] 01:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::: Possibly this: ] ] 00:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			== Call for mentors ==
	:::::: Per Tony's above permission I have reduced the block to 1 week. I think we should strongly encourage Karwynn to only edit in article space for an extended amount of time. ] 00:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::: I think shows a fairly complete awareness of the inappropriateness of his message. Don't you? ] 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::: I think it's more along the lines of "I'll probably be indef-blocked for commenting on the state of Misplaced Pages on my own talk page." &mdash;] 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::There's a huge difference between constructive criticism (which a lot of people manage to do just fine with) and trolling. --] 06:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	I should think it an incontrovertible principle that editors are expected to swing by the article space now again. For an active editor Karwynn has sworn off the article space to an astonishing degree (). ] ] 01:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:There is no reason to keep around an otherwise disruptive user who doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 01:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	::I would say pragmatic unblock, as otherwise he'll just go off somewhere winging about the conspiracy and within a week or two there'll be a new user with suspiciously similar editing patterns. ] 01:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::Lol at all of you who think I edit at ED. Blocks for good reasons sound great, but when those reasons are false, it restricts the value of the block. ] ] 05:37, 14 September 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)
	Reblocked :-/ This guy just keeps on doing more of the same. --] 06:22, 14 September 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 ]==
	* Sad but true. Endorsing a palpable sockpuppet does not exactly endear Karwynn to me either. From the negligible participation in mainspace I would say this is not going to impact the project at all - I should probably have done this yesterday, actually, instead of just asking Karwynn to stop. So: endorse block. <b>]</b> 11:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
			== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
	I have had to restrain myself from taking care of this situation for some time. If anyone wants further evidence why this editor needs to find a new playground, just ask me. Cyde and Tony Sidaway deserve medals.--] 06:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
	==Website using wikipedia material without compliance to the GFDL==
	I'm not sure where to report this, but is using wikipedia material without following licencing requirments.--] 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:<meta name="description" content="WELCOME TO ONE OF THE BEST LINKS SITE ON THE NET..."> hmm, {{tl|db-nocontext}} perhaps? ] 01:55, 14 September 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)
	::You seem to have missed the issue.--] 02:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::What you're looking for is ]. <span style="font-family:serif;">&mdash;]✰]</span> 02:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Heritage Foundation ==
	== Patterns merely perceived?: User name plus behavior = small freak-out ==
			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)
	Is this at ''all'' normal? A series of user names, most of the form "name <space> name", all editing a single article, with very small edits quite quickly, over a short period of time but not overlapping. Is this someone trying to 'establish' a set of users for ... 'later'?
			== Deleted contributions request ==
	*05:09, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
			{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*05:05, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
			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)
	*05:02, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
	*04:59, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
	*04:53, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
	*04:31, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
			:{{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)
	Check out the of ]. (I'm tempted to revert the whole lot of changes, as several are just bad, but I'm spooked.)
			::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] ==
	I scanned down the list of new accounts for about 1.5 hours' worth, and except for
			{{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)}}
	*04:25, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account)
			]'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)
	none else fit the (perceived?) pattern.
			: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)
	I know that people will often perceive a pattern in "white noise", but this is too strange for me. ] 05:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:I'd say there's something up. That history page is scary! Looking at (there are over 50 edits in between) there seem to be no substantial changes (and a few copyediting errors, which I am going to go fix). It seems like someone trying to build up an edit count on a few socks. I'm no expert or admin though, but that's what I think. ]] 06:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	*Yeah, that looks like a pattern all right. - ]|] 08:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	**Bruce seems to be unconnected to the others, and is presumably blisfully ignorant that his name is being dragged through the mud. I've dropped a handrolled "please don't" message on each of the others. Probably just someone experimenting. We will see. Regards, ] 09:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::I hope I didn't give that impression, sorry if I did. ] was not in the first list, and I was _trying_ to say he wasn't a possible problem, but apparently failed. No, I was ''not'' including ] in my concerns. ] 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
	==Request for unblock==
			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)
	Got a dilemma. I've heard from a blocked user, ] who created a benign sockpuppet account under ] in order to contact me. This fellow was a problem user, but I don't believe the problems were intentional. Rather, I believe it's because he's slightly autistic and has admitted as such. He wishes to reestablish an account under the original user name but I don't want to override another admin, in this case, Tony Sidaway. I know how I felt when I was overturned a few months ago by another admin. I've left word with Tony but I haven't heard back. So...what to do? Thanks, guys and gals. - ] 07:20, 14 September 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>
	:Tony did, in fact, respond, you must have missed it (I've moved this from ANI as per his request):
			: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)
	:: ''Please raise this on ]. He was subject to a community ban and I'd like to see how people feel about him coming back. See . As a matter of personal opinion, I would strenuously oppose his return under any restrictions. I just don't know that he ever helped the encyclopedia. --] 04:13, 12 September 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. ==
	: ] 07:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			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)
	:: Yes, sorry for not checking this myself. --] 08:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	*So far he's used his alternate account only to contact an admin and a case of silly vandalism. I'd be happy to give him a second chance. We can always community ban him again if even the beginning of a problem arises. Vandals and troublemakers can change and as Lucky said, the ban may have been due to other reasons. - ]|] 08:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	*<s>Concur. I see no immediate harm in giving the user a 2nd chance. ] 08:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)</s>
	::Have you seen the block log? In particular:
	:::: ''02:08, 16 August 2005 Lucky 6.9 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Wiki brah (contribs) (Autistic user who is asking for another chance)''
	::Regards, ] 08:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:::*I fail to see the relevence of a year-old unblock. - ]|] 11:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	::::* I believe the point he's making is that we've been down this road before. ] ] 11:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	*I'm not comfortable with unblocking someone who has a history of poor behaviour, followed by contrition, followed by poor behaviour. That's not autism, it's trolling. Add to this a general lack of edits to the encyclopedia itself (out of the user's final 100 edits, just 5 were to the mainspace) and I think we're inviting trouble by letting this user back. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	*:I am somewhat weary of autism being used to disguise trolling. <sup></sup> ] 09:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:*Autistic people can be good encyclopedic contributors; I think we could overturn the community ban on him if he's willing to work with us... I would help him if he wants it. --] 10:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	*: I think that as long as he is prepared to exercise self-restraint and accept a zero tolerance approach to incivility on his part then a second chance is not so much to ask. I suspect he will be closely watched. I view it as a good sign that he asked rather than simply create a new account. The worst that can happen is that we have to block him again, which is not so very terrible. <b>]</b> 12:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	*:: The worst thing that can happen? We spend another six months nursemaiding an editor who shows little or no inclination to improve the encyclopedia, and shows every sign of wanting to flaunt his anti-social habits in the hope of gaining attention. --] 16:23, 14 September 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)
	== Who is the ]? ==
			::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)
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MutterErde&diff=75673503&oldid=75673413
			:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Hide this racist edit. ==
	curiuos ] 09:46, 14 September 2006 (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)
	This person has an inappropriate username and I can't click on "Edit this page". So much red text... O.O ] is his talk page. --] 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	:Reported to ], you are more likely to get admin attention over there. ] 11:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	== myg0t ==
			:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
	{{article|myg0t}} has been deleted, reviewed, deletion endorsed, earth salted, reviewed again, reviewed again. It's pretty unliekly that we'll see an article at that location in the near future. The ] is, of course, the usual trollfest. I suggest we delete it, as a talk page of a deleted article which is unlikely to play any productive part in a deletion review in the foreseeable future. What say? <b>]</b> 12:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			{{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):
	: Deleted. ] 12:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			*
	::And earth salted. Technically talk pages aren't speediable if they "contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere", but I don't even see the use of that generally, and certainly none of the trolling on ] is any use to anyone. --]<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			*
			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)
	== Prolific spammer - Keenstar ==
			{{Abot}}
			== 96.230.143.43 ==
	] (] | ]) Appears to have been set up solely to promote his/her site contactmusic. User has been warned twice (diffs ) but has not responded or changed behavior.
	Sample of edits being made: . All edits so far (except uploading company logo) have been of similar type. --]] 15:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Eternal Equinox limited to one account==
			:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Eternal Equinox continues to edit anonymously, both disrupting articles and continuing to violate bans received under probation for the disruption. Eternal Equinox is hereby limited to one publicly known account, preferably ]. All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user.
			::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
			== StoneX Group Inc. ==
	Passed by 6-0. 17:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			I’m concerned about the page at ]
	For the arbitration committee. --] 17:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Dear smart people,==
			== Permissions Removal ==
	Please read ] and hack it into teeny little bits with your cluesticks. It needs Bastard Peer-Reviewing From Hell - ] 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
	: You didn't use the proper process to write your essay!! you are not following the policy on essay drafts to be created in userspace nor you submited by triplicate your annoucement to the appropiate forums. It's an Out Of Process Essay!! thus it should be deleted. -- <small> ]</small> 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
			Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	==Giano==
	* {{user5|Giano}}
			:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Giano has taken his concerns about the recent Carnildo affair beyond the level of reasonable discussion and has begun to make quite hysterical and false accusations . I've given him three hours to reconsider his words and cool down a bit. --] 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 20:08, 9 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators

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

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

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

XFD backlog

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

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

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request removal of PMR/Rollback

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

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

---

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

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

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

Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal of topic ban from 2018

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

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

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

---

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

Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The exact text from the source is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emoji redirect

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

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

---

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

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

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

Topic ban appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andra Febrian report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

---

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

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

Cannot draftify page

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

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

---

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

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

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

Remove PCR flag

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

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

---

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

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

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

"The Testifier" report

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

Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

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

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

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

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

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

---

repost from archive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, I am glad you asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

  — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

Call for mentors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Foundation

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

Deleted contributions request

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hide this racist edit.

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

96.230.143.43

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

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

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

StoneX Group Inc.

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

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

Permissions Removal

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

Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards