| Revision as of 16:10, 19 September 2006 view sourceJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,082 edits →You're all idiots: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:00, 11 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,214 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |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 | |||
| }} | |||
| --><!-- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| <!-- 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' noticeboard/Archive57--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| --><noinclude> | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| ==Open tasks== | |||
| <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| {{Admin tasks}} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
| == Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me. | |||
| Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ]. | |||
| : i 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. | |||
| 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 what it's worth, I feel that way about ], too, although less strongly. ] 10:59, 7 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. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠]♠ ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft == | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it. | |||
| :::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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page. | |||
| As 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 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. | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| 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? | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| <small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]? | |||
| ::::: 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) | |||
| ] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| ::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] | ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::::::::::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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::::::::::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) | |||
| * {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::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) | |||
| **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) | |||
| 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 updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 43.249.196.179 (again) == | |||
| I'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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :] 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :]: 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) | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| ::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (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'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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::::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. | |||
| :"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) | |||
| ::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :'''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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| ::::::Thanks. As I stated below, I hope Zeraeph and I can come to an agreement. --] ] 15:12, 11 September 2006 (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) | |||
| ''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) | |||
| : 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) | |||
| :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 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (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) | |||
| :::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| == Incivility at ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| @] 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (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) | |||
| :I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ] ] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ] ] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ] ] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages. | |||
| :But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}} | |||
| :::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}} | |||
| :::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| 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 Zeraeph. 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) | |||
| :Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (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) | |||
| *'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material == | |||
| About the only person not in favour of an immediate ban on Zeraeph is DeathPhoenix. Zeraeph has got form. She has a highly manipulative personality. For her, acting this way is a compulsion. Any idea of negotiating with her to reach agreement is doomed to failure. It is very naive to even try. She may play mind games and pretend to agree to a compromise solution but she would just be bluffing. It is Misplaced Pages that is much more important than the welfare of one contributor - Zeraeph. Why should we have to endure any more of her poison ? --] 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * {{la|Naomi Seibt}} | |||
| After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Topic ban appeal == | |||
| ''' THE SYNOPSIS for those who don't want to read all this''' | |||
| '''* More Wiki situations found re/Zeraeph's problem behaviors''' | |||
| '''* Zeraeph tells of 8 years grudge, showing she brought off-Wiki matters to Misplaced Pages.''' -] 23:33, 14 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) | |||
| ::: My first involvement in the Z-affair was very tangential. I visited Keyne's Talk page to thank him for his plea for Z to halt her disruptive posting on the Asperger Syndrome talk page. The talk page had become emotionally stressful just to read and try to keep up with the others (a steadily dwindling number). | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::Then came the last of the attempted Mediations. I saw her refusal to cooperate and to divert attention from the issue. Then here, RN and others say they have had problems, too. I decided to check out her contributions history and so far I have, in this short time, found that she has gone after a PhD psychologist by impugning the quality of his education and, seemingly, his relationship with an online mental health site. She then implied that he wasn't at all qualified to write about the topic. | |||
| ::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored. | |||
| *:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects. | |||
| *:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did: | |||
| *:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart == | |||
| :::I found situations which indicates Z brought one, perhaps more, old grudges with people in the mental disorders topics. I recognized Penbat from years ago from a bullying forum where he is a moderator and where the two of them had conflict. Penbat was easy to spot as he uses his screen name everywhere. | |||
| {{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. — ] ] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Most disturbing of anything I saw was the long page of posts I found when I went looking for the man who wrote the rebuttal to the Vaknin opinion article. ] | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::This was the ending where she revealed that she has been personally upset with Sam for many years. On that page, many of her posts indicate her problems with him were of long duration before she came to Misplaced Pages. However, when I went hunting, her posts to Samvak started only in February of 2006, and she showed no sign of knowing him at all and he did not recognize her until later. | |||
| :@]: 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) | |||
| :Under the SubTopic entitled '''TIMEOUT!!!!''' by Ta bu shi da yu | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Andra Febrian report == | |||
| ''Folks, my article was never to whale on Sam! I responded to his points, and asked for his response and he only responded with an ad hominem attack. Please, we should not be doing the same in kind. I realise he's frustrating, but it gets us nowhere to have a go at him. Please, some kindness and patience for this critic of Misplaced Pages! He's absolutely no threat to us, and even if he was, we should not be too harsh on him anyway. - '''Ta bu shi da yu''' 15:48, 3 July 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">— 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 === | |||
| ::You wouldn't say that if you knew him. | |||
| :: <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> | |||
| ::'''''The guy has spent almost 8 years cold-bloodedly, deliberately playing cruel little games with the heads of as many extremelly vulnerable, damaged people as he can rope in, and determinedly crushing anyone he percieves as "getting in his way"''''', including, but not limited to, the kind of tactics you have seen around "The Six Sins of the Misplaced Pages". | |||
| User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/> | |||
| ::To Sam Vaknin "kindness" and "patience" are just contemptable weaknesses in others to be exploited. So don't waste them on him. | |||
| '''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/> | |||
| ::Truth and fairness are the best he deserves. --'''Zeraeph''' 16:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/> | |||
| '''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/> | |||
| '''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/> | |||
| <br/> | |||
| I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12) | |||
| :Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Cannot draftify page == | |||
| :::''Maybe so, but this is not the forum for such matters. Blogs and places like Kuro5hin are best for such matters. - '''Ta bu shi da yu''' 16:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)'' | |||
| {{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Remove PCR flag == | |||
| ::::Maybe so, but I don't think this is the place to request "kindness and patience" for someone like that under circumstances where to extend either would be to leave oneself open to abuse. | |||
| {{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::Still it might be best if discussion of the man himself, as opposed to the specific article in question, were to move over to Talk:Sam Vaknin? --'''Zeraeph''' 16:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == "The Testifier" report == | |||
| :: It looks to me like Sam Vaknin got badly wound up by Zeraeph, ref his "The Six Sins of the Misplaced Pages" for example. He presumably equated Misplaced Pages with Zeraeph as Misplaced Pages in general seemed to have sided with Zeraeph in preferance to himself. Far from being the monster that Zeraeph portrays him as, he still runs two popular support groups for victims of narcissists and commands the respect of many victims. --] 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Problem with creating user talk page == | |||
| {{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. ] (]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Update === | |||
| :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) | |||
| This sub-topic seems to have gone quiet all of a sudden. --] 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 == | |||
| Slowed a week ago. Deathphoenix wanted time for Zeraeph, see if she could ignore cetain people. He said she'd promised not to slip around in stocking feet. on that note, I got wiki mail from someone who may or may not be the someone others have mentioned. The party says they have had two socks in sight for the past week and 3 IP addresses to check against. Something about how it won't be sent unless it's wanted. So, for what it's worth, I'll leave that bit without further ado. Hey, The Amazing Race begins again tonight! CBS -] 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] from the past month (December 2024). | |||
| == Research request == | |||
| <div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> | |||
| '''Please do not delete this post without discussion with ].''' | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| ] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
| 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: | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| ] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
| http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=272072498578 | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| 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) | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| : '''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. ;-) | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| : 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) | |||
| ] '''Oversight changes''' | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| ::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) | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
| :::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) | |||
| * 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''' | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| * 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''' | |||
| :::::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 ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ] | |||
| ---- | |||
| 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. —]→] • 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{center|{{flatlist| | |||
| * ] | |||
| : Don't encourage them to spam Misplaced Pages users. That will just get Misplaced Pages put on blocklists. --] 19:04, 16 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) | |||
| }}}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| ==new topic: can we have a more informative rollback choice?== | |||
| -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 --> | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :I would suggest not doing anything, since there is nothing wrong with doing so. ]|] 20:29, 10 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :::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 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::It shouldn't happen in the first place, and having to talk to the admin first is quite a waste of time. I had a minor fight on a ] page - I added something and the admin reverted. I think we both wasted more time arguing about it on his talk page than if he had just spent '''20 seconds''' explaining why he didn't think it was funny. ] 19:36, 17 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Patterns merely perceived?: User name plus behavior = small freak-out == | |||
| 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'? | |||
| *05:09, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account) | |||
| *05:05, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account) | |||
| *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) | |||
| Check out the of ]. (I'm tempted to revert the whole lot of changes, as several are just bad, but I'm spooked.) | |||
| I scanned down the list of new accounts for about 1.5 hours' worth, and except for | |||
| *04:25, 14 September 2006 ] (Talk | ]) (New user account) | |||
| none else fit the (perceived?) pattern. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :::: I apologise. I didn't think that you meant that Bruce was a problem, only that you were just raising a perfectly valid concern that there might be a connection. But I'm discomforted that Bruce was included in a check user request . That's not because it wasn't done in good faith - it was. Just that it's rough on him to show up and accidentally be caught in a dragnet. I'm uncomfortable that we're discussing him and he doesn't (presumably) know it. But I don't what to do about it - leave a message on his page saying "By the way Bruce, just to let you know, we're watching you and we're know you're innocent?" That's wierd too. Regards, ] 22:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I only included him, because he appears (or appeared) to be connected by naming and edit habits. If he's innocent I'm sorry he got dragged in here, but I don't see anything implicitly wrong with innocents being included in RFCU when there's reason to believe there's a connection. The persons performing such checks will not reveal any confidential information, so information he is not related can only be good for him. - ]|] 08:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == myg0t == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| : 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) | |||
| :::Do you think the same approach could be applied to ]? -- ] 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] is also flaring up again after another admin deleted the talk page a few months ago. ] 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Giano== | |||
| * {{user5|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 . I've given him three hours to reconsider his words and cool down a bit. --] 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that a block was necessary here... I don't read anything that makes it look like there's any danger to the project, and it isn't obvious to me that the comments are designed to upset any contributors. ] 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)- | |||
| ::I agre with Jkelly. I'm going to unblock, and leave him a message on his talk page asking him to be a bit cooler. ] 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hrm, Flonight beat me to it. ] 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't agree with the block, but Giano definitely needs to cool it. There's room for civil discussion, and then there's accusations of conspiracy, corruption, and cabalism. True or not, the latter doesn't help a damn thing. ] ] 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : No problem. I think it had gotten far beyond the stage where asking him to cool it would have worked, though. We'll see how it goes. --] 21:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry, for the delay in posting. Keep getting edit conflicts. Giano will not respond positively to a block so I unblocked. --] 21:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I support getting Giano to return to the excellent work he has done in FA's and to try and let the situations outside of that become the past, as they should be. I also hope folks aren't going around undoing Tony Sidaway's admin actions, knowing that he cannot revert them since he is under an administrative 1RR ruling. Let's not undo others admin actions as this is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks.--] 21:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"his is the second time in less than 24 hours an admin has changed Tony's blocks." Seems to me there are two ways to interpret that statistic.... —] 21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Here's here all week folks! ] ] 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Tony, the block was uncalled for, especially of an editor you hadn't even warned, that I can see. The block summary was even more so. "Hysterical" is untrue and a personal attack, and now it's there in the log for evermore. Please consider the formulation of block summaries with particular care, as they are extremely difficult to remove or change, and it's in practice never done. This was discussed extensively, recently, in relation to Carnildo's "hate speech" summaries, which still remain in several block logs—Giano's, as luck would have it, being one of them. ] | ] 21:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ::Yes, the block was uncalled for (and particularly bad form). Better to risk a bruised ego by undoing an improper block than to let it stand out of some misguided notion of politeness. ] ] 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this,Bishonen. Giano's accusations of skulduggery and malice are beyond anything that is ever acceptable on Misplaced Pages. --] 21:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, well, you don't usually mince words yourself, Tony. A month ago you were accusing a fellow admin of ] 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Tony weren't you also just fighting with Giano on the crat board? I notice you've also started doing more refactoring of those discussions after I asked you to stop. ] 21:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::And where is this "skulduggery and malice?" From the two diffs you provided, the editor disagreed with Taxman's re-promotion of Carnildo and discussed it. They didn't explicitly attack either Carnildo or Taxman with anything more than opinions. I don't think dissenting opinions deserve a block, and if something in the grey area like this ''does'', it is better to discuss your problems with the editor first, especially if you've had problems with them before. There was nothing urgent or dangerous about this matter which required an immediate block. ] (]·]·]) 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If 2-3 admins disagree with Tony Sidaway, I think that sends a strong message that the action was wrong in teh first place. ] 19:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think that events have proven the wisdom of that block. The issue has quite evaporated now that those who were engaged in pushing a ridiculous shrieking campaign against trusted Wikipedians have stopped. When a nurse lances a boil, sometimes she gets covered in malodorous filth and she may be blamed for the smell. The patient's health prospects are immediately improved, however. --] 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, we have to add that one to ] ;). ] 20:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Such a remark is deeply offensive and disgusting. No wonder a block was issued, was about time. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::What pure, unadulterated, self-righteous poppycock; entirely uncivil and an offensive personal attack to boot: delighting in the departure of a Wikipedian whose positive contribution to this encyclopedia (rather than the byzantine claptrap that resides in Misplaced Pages space) can scarcely be counted, from a person who admits that his favourite article is the execrable ]. The block was not "wise" - it was unnecessary, inflamatory, and made a bad situation worse, like the block of ]. Tony the nurse may be congratulated for amputating Misplaced Pages's right arm. And the issues underlying ]'s accusations have not gone away. Far from it. -- ] ] 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *If anything could be the opposite of what was stated, that is. Who, pray tell, are the "trusted Wikipedians," when it's quite clear that Tony is not trusted and barely a Wikipedian, while Giano enjoyed a great deal of trust and made Misplaced Pages grow? Is Tony saying that his shrieking campaign against Giano is over now? That's odd, since, above, he says that he had never heard the name until a couple of days prior and then, not a quarter of a screen later, that he knows that Giano had been complaining for months, and, elsewhere, that all of Giano's complaints are "silly" and that it's a "truism" that they needed no consideration. Someone has a Bush-like grip on realitys. ] 20:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tony's last statement here -- the one with the metaphor comparing Giano to a filth-filled boil -- is incredibly offensive. I question whether the value Tony adds to the encyclopedia is worth the price the community pays by allowing him to edit here. —] (]) 20:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps the metaphor wasn't intended to come out the way it did. Tony, I invite you to withdraw the comparison or face a block for an outrageous personal attack. ] | ] 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| :::: Bish, no need to. He already got for it, and I fully endorse that block. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 20:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Mmm... Never thought I'd see the day when I was sticking up for Tony, but I don't think that was a personal attack, merely a poorly worded metaphor. The "boil" was Giano's behaviour, the operation was issuing a cooling-off block, and the mess was, well, all this of course. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's how ''I'' read it. --] 20:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I support the block - Tony's clearly been engaging in a pattern of disruptive behavior. He may enjoy playing the biggest bully in the schoolyard, but this yard doesn't need bullies and there's no reason we should tolerate them. ] ] 20:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : As the blocking admin, the block was not just for that attack (which merited at least a stern warning by itself and almost certainly a block) but the general disruptiveness and lack of civility and willingness to mistreat long term productive users. This particularly dif was the final straw in that regard. I consider the dif to be arguably not block worthy but when taken together with Tony's other recent behavior it seemed more than necessary (and before anyone thinks I have some personal issue here I was the person who attempted to defend Tony's ealier borderline wheel-warring). ] 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Erm, I'm not quite sure what the wisdom in this block is. I would echo Newyorkbrad's thoughtful comments below about both of these editors. If we accept that Giano's and Ghirla's blocks were unwarranted as cool-off blocks only serve to make a bad situation worse, how is this block different (other than being a block of Tony Sidaway)? I hope it isn't a controversial thing to say now that my ideal scenario is that ''both'' Giano and Tony Sidaway (and Ghirla, too) stick around for a long time to come, and in calmer circumstances, too. I understand the problem with incivility here. But I'm left wondering what productive gain this block is meant to have, unless it is just a heat-of-the-moment thing. I did think the course of previous discussion ws to determine that we don't think blocks are a good solution to incivility for long-term productive editors. I think all block buttons should be lowered at this point, as they are clearly hindering a resolution. ]·] 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that we should be more conservative with blocks all around. However, there was a pattern of disruptive behavior here that was getting worse, not better. Tony takes "not getting it" to a new level, and he wasn't getting it. Will this make him realize his behavior is unacceptable? I don't know. But we do know that no amount of people simply ''telling'' him it's unacceptable has had any effect. ] ] 21:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::My point is (and speaking not to the merits of any of the arguments, but just how I see them if I'm not misreading) it seems like that was exactly the reason Tony gave for blocking Giano, and the arguments he got in return were not (totally) that Giano wasn't a bit too uncivil, but that that's not how blocks should work. If that's not how blocks should work... maybe it would have been better to have blocked neither of these editors. I'm afraid this whole affair is creating needless divisions between people (based on administrative and community concerns, too, not even encyclopedia ones) ans wish there was some easy way to transition back to amiable encyclopedia writing. ]·] 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Dmcdevit, I can see the irony in blocking someone for being uncivil in a discussion over why he shouldn't block people for being uncivil. I also understand and support the block - Tony needs a wake up call, and wishing for amiability continues to not work. Scores of Wikipedians, including many admins, have tried to explain to Tony that he can and should deal with conflict situations in a way that serves to dignify all the parties involved, and thus easily de-escalate situations, rather than escalating them by treating disgruntled parties with contempt and dismisiveness. He continues to disagree, and I don't see any number of repetitions from experienced Wikipedians making any difference. If anything, he's more and more defiantly sure that his brute-squad enforcement approach to adminship is the way to go. It's up to ArbCom at this point. I realize that Tony is a clerk, and very helpful to the arbitrators, but they really need to somehow take him aside and explain that, whether he understands or not, whether he agrees or not, this won't fly, and that he is ''not'' indispensible to the project. If ArbCom won't say it, then Jimbo needs to say it. If Jimbo won't say anything, the community's patience will eventually wear out. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: And Tony's most recent comment makes it look like Bish would have blocked Tony as well. ] 21:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that Tony has issued a few unwarranted and truly damaging blocks recently, and that his continued obstinate attitude and condescending, dismissive replies to everyone who disagrees with him are unacceptable. However, I feel this block, and ], will not solve anything. Tony will simply "sit this block out," and then continue the controversial behavior. I think, at this point we need to seriously consider whether Misplaced Pages is improved by Tony having the mop and bucket. —] 21:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This block is indeed useless when the blocked user does not understand its purpose at all. --]|] 21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I suppose I should weigh in. For a long time now, Tony and a few others have "prevailed" in their disputes by not obeying the rules and then knowing that their opponents, being rules proponents, will not treat them as they have treated others. (Sorry for that inelegance, but I hope the sense is clear.) Blocking for personal attacks is something I disagree with. Blocking for disruption is something I agree with. I believed that the frivolous and ill-tempered RFAR behavior was disruptive. I believe coming back to get the last word in this section was disruptive. I believe that blocking people who merely disagree with you is disruptive. I concur that this block was warranted, exactly as JoshuaZ said, not for the particularly noxious phrase, nor for the contradictory and apparently dishonest arguments, but because of ongoing disruptiveness. Blocks are preventative, and this one was. That said, I also think that clock struck midnight days ago on whether or not Tony uses or abuses administrative powers. ] 00:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===The problem is not Giano but Tony Sidaway=== | |||
| I see a big problem here and this problem is not {{user|Giano}}, but {{admin|Tony Sidaway}}. Tony has turned the entire Misplaced Pages into a battleground between himself and anyone who dares to disagree with him. Tony has lately resorted to a more fiery methods of intimidation, including frivolous arbcom submissions and, most amazingly, blocks when the opponent is especially voiceful. His own recent activity ranged between foul language, personal attacks, intimidation and gross abuse. There is no single contribution into a single article in mainspace, which is also noteworthy. | |||
| Until Tony will stand in front of ArbCom for his contempt of everyone but himself, he needs time to chill out. I call on the community ro consider giving him a time to cool off. Perhaps a 1-3 day block will be enough for him to take a good use of a wikibreak, cool down and come back somewhat chilled out. --] 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Again already? He got blocked just a couple of days ago as a naughty essay-deleter :) ] 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I thought it had been established that cooling-off blocks didn't do any good. Heaven knows there are howls of protest whenever one's proposed against a non-admin. ] ] 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is that sarcasm or do you agree that cooling off blocks do no good? —] 21:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've never seen them work, really, because it's difficult for someone to take a block in good grace. I don't blame you for asking, though. ] ] 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: They work well if they're permitted to. I don't disagree with the unblock (all my blocks are subject to review and overturning with my ''implicit'' permission). I think we would have done well to permit Giano the time to reconsider the quite hysterical and false accusations of skulduggery and malice of his recent comments. --] 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You are wrong. This block would not have cooled Giano off. His comments were not hysterical. ] All of your blocks are subject to review regardless of your permission. —] 22:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ah, my impression is that he does post any potentially controversial blocks up for review, so I cannot see what you meaning is on this point.--] 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Since he said "all my blocks" I'm not sure where you got "potentially controversial blocks" from. Regardless, my meaning is that on Misplaced Pages all of our actions are subject to review, no permission necessary. —] 22:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Tony Sidaways' latest is another of ] that will obviously have the opposite effect of its stated intent. This needs to be addressed in WP:BLOCK. —] 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocking isn't the answer. Furthermore, I'd encourage you to be careful with "voiceful" (I suspect you meant "forceful"). There's a very important line between arguing your point forcefully and trolling. It's often hard to tell the difference, and people have varying levels of tolerance. When in doubt, moderate one's language. ] ] 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(four edit conflicts) Agree that the problem is Tony. Disagree on the block. Other solutions are needed. --] - '']'' - ] 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I believe Giano may be more than a little upset at the way Tony to a civil (and might I add hypothetical) , then, called on it, "ridiculous threats deserve to to be treated with loud and resounding contempt." Noting that one would call for Tony's recall if he were a bureaucrat is not any sort of threat that I can discern. Tony is being incivil; he has been consistenty policing post-Carnildo discussion to what seems to me a disruptive point, and he should perhaps block himself for three hours for a calm-down, if he finds such blocks generally effective. —] (]) 21:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Did anyone bother to discuss the blocking with Tony before reverting his action?--] 22:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think there was about as much discussion with Tony about unblocking as there was between Tony and Giano before he imposed the block. -- ] ] 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Hi ho === | |||
| If no one minds I'm going to attempt to stifle and censor discussion by proposing that this matter best be handled as dispute resolution between Giano and Tony Sidaway. Tony reported his block, the block has been undone. Nothing's going to be accomplished here save much grumbling and drama. We all know where the dispute pages are; we all know where to discuss the blocking policy. Administrative action isn't needed here. ] ] 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I've got nothing further to say on the matter. Hopefully Giano will calm down now that more eyes are on him. --] 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::(multiple edit conflicts) I see two issues here. If people agree that cool-off blocks do not work, why Tony is not yet reprimanded for the cool-off blocks against respected users who simply dare to disagree with him? I mean, some people cry foul loudly but since Tony does not care about the community's perception of himself, there is no consequences for him whatsoever. At the same time, he lately runs completely amok and that's not just me who says that. He needs not a cool-off period but a wiki-break. If he, like all of us, is such a wikiholic that he can't call a wikibreak by himself, the wikibreak must be called on him by the community. The disruption by Tony to an entire Misplaced Pages has become intolerable. Personally, I won't care if he blocks me. First of all, someone will likely unblock, and, second, I am here to write content and I will use the time to write an article or two on a hard-drive. But other users are more britle and take unfair blocks closer to heart. Tony's behavior drive out Wikipedians, and not those who like him spend their entire time chatting and lawyering, but those who write a FA once every 2-3 days. Users like the G-3 (Giano, George, Ghirlandajo), the Worldtraveller, 172 is hardly contributing. What the hell is happening? --] 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(Record number of edit conflicts) ''I strongly endorse the unblocking.'' I had been following the discussion on ] today and Tony Sidaway was an active participant in it, disagreeing with several of the other users contributing. In the process, Tony made remarks that by his own admission on his talk page were uncivil and "over the top." Resort to the page history at BN is necessary because throughout the day, Tony refactored the discussion by deleting several comments that he disagreed with. Although BN is a project page rather than an article, Tony's blocking here was the equivalent of blocking to gain an advantage in an edit war, widely considered an unacceptable practice. | |||
| :Under the circumstances, while I do not agree with everything Giano had to say, and I find that the ongoing debate on Carnildo's re-sysoping has become somewhat sterile, Tony certainly should not have been the blocking admin -- even had Giano said anything that could have warranted a block, which he did not. ] is not some random troll to be driven away; he is a major contributor to the encyclopedia, who has had two featured articles on the Main Page ''within the past week'', and is entitled to express his opinions on an administrative noticeboard, particularly where he is doing so more civilly than the person who chose to block him. | |||
| :We are at the point that we have some valuable contributors who are ''living in fear'' of administrators will block them if they say something out of touch with the mood of the day -- not in an article, but in project space where meta-issues are ''supposed'' to be debated. A strong consensus should emerge from this that it's time for some folks to step away from the block button. ] 22:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Who are the contributors that are leaving for fear of being blocked for speaking their minds?--] 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I cleaned up the BN and was ''thanked'' for doing so by several editors, including one bureaucrat. It doesn't matter what good Giano is doing elsewhere, his activities on use talk pages were inflammatory accusations of malicious skulduggery and he had been warned to stop. Newyorkbrad's false accusation of blocking to gain advantage in a dispute is unworthy of response. --] 22:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Newyorkbrad, a relatively new editor, is also one of the most thoughtful commentators on meta-issues I have seen. You demean yourself by dismissing him thusly. —] (]) 22:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thoughtful he may be, but when he's wrong he's wrong. --] 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: He's not wrong. You are wrong. Dismissing his accurate and well reasoned objection as "unworthy of response" demonstrates conclusively that your civility issues need to be formally addressed. —] 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Surely all opinions judged wrong by you are not "unworthy of response"? —] (]) 22:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: No. Only the clearly ridiculous ones. --] 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Thoughts on Two Users=== | |||
| :] is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Misplaced Pages as an administrator, as the ArbCom clerk (time-consuming and tedious I'm sure), and in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Tony has his rough edges: by his own admission, he is sometimes uncivil; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down; and he's acknowledged that he has a fiery temper, to the point that he is subject to restrictions not placed on any other administrator. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to vicious personal attacks off-wiki for his work here; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :] is dedicated to this project. He has clearly spent thousands of hours serving Misplaced Pages as a contributor to some of our best articles, and more recently to some extent in meta-debate as well. When doing his job well, he is one of the most valuable Wikipedians. Unfortunately, Giano has his rough edges: when provoked, he sometimes skirts the edges of civility; he says what's on his mind and minces no words; and lots of people have had to urge him more than once to cool down. But he's put in his time; he's been subject to inane block summaries and proposed (fortunately not enacted) ArbCom remedies; and he withstands it all and continues to work for Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :There is a place for both of these people here, and it's not sitting behind blocks. ] 22:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well put. ] 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The problem here is that what Giano has been doing is far beyond incivility. It is clearly false accusations, without evidence, of malicious wrongdoing. He remains very, very worked up about this, which is a shame, because we'd all like him to cool down and stop adding this stuff to user talk pages and trying to whip up hatred against other Wikipedians. Those actions are real problems. We may differ on what to do about them, but they won't go away just because we ignore them. --] 22:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*"''we'd all like him to cool down and stop adding this stuff to user talk pages''" I bet you would; but what stuff exactly Tony? ] | ] 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If that's what is happening, and there is a real behaviour problem, it isn't obvious enough yet, given that a whole bunch of us here couldn't see the block as even a necessary evil. If there is a problem that goes beyond Giano's... level of emphasis, it needs a lot more spelling out -- an RfC level of spelling-out, I'd suggest. ] 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : It's abundantly obvious. "All of them I suspect were in on this - even Angela - there are no innocents here" and "I smell a rat, I see a rat, and I don't like it one little bit" make it plain that the fellow has taken to making false, quite unfounded and extremely damaging allegations about other Wikipedians. Asking for an RfC is superfluous. This is the kind of poison, in my opinion, that should ''never'' be spread around on Misplaced Pages. Since others can't see that I've no problem accepting that I was mistaken. --] 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| //sigh// Well, I was hoping that perhaps what I wrote would induce Tony Sidaway to acknowledge that Giano has his merits, and Giano to recognize that Tony has his. Not working out that great so far, is it? Tony likes to write that he's "not one of life's mediators," and it looks like perhaps I shouldn't quit my day job either. ] 23:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Newyorkbrad, I have nothing against Giano and until the other day I don't think I'd ever heard of him. His recent actions have been, to say the least of it, odd. As an administrator I seek to deal with those actions. I'm not succeeding in this instance otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation, and I'll own up to that with no problems. However Giano's actions remain a problem for the community. --] 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === You're all idiots === | |||
| OK, I don't really mean that. :-) Well, not for all of you; Newyorkbrad, for one, has been quite rational. The hysteria and nonsense from many of the rest of you, however, leaves me disappointed. I won't try to point fingers at the poor players (if you don't know that a finger would have been pointed at you or not, it probably would have been, and that you cannot tell is not a good thing). | |||
| Tony's comment was not at all, in any way, a personal attack; it was an accurate observation, though perhaps beladen with a little too much melodrama. Only those looking to take offence could possibly miscontrue it. However, even were it offensive, this build-up still would be nowhere near sufficient to block a fellow sysop. We shouldn't block people in retribution, only in prevention, when it will actually make a difference to the benefit of Misplaced Pages. Blocking a long-term user - whoever that is - will rarely (but not never) accomplish this. | |||
| I would imagine that you've all got much, ''much'' more productive things to do than comment on here. Some fool once told me that, apparently, we're here to write an encyclopædia. Go and get on with that job, and '''knock it off'''. | |||
| OK, but only 'cos it was requested: I am Spartacus. | |||
| ] ] 22:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And I agree. As I said before, I think just about everyone who has used their block or unblock button in this matter and everything leading up to it has made things worse. We need to step back and decide when such things are worth it and beneficial to the encyclopedia, and when they just make us feel better (and make others not feel better). I think it's time to recognize this ''whole'' affair has been an exercise in the latter. I hope I am stressing "''everyone''" here clearly enough. ]·] 22:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sure you're stressing it clearly enough for those who already agree with you. Those who won't apply it to themselves are precisely those who need to hear it, though. I doubt that particular bit of communication is best on-wiki, so I hope it's happening off-wiki. -]<sup>(])</sup> 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I concur entirely in James' opinion, above. The block button is a sledgehammer, not a feather. It is rarely possible to give someone a "light tap on the shoulder" with the block button, and yet people persist in the fiction that they can. It just increases the drama level, and that's not helping Misplaced Pages at all. So, please, everyone, stop being silly sausages; move along, there's nothing more to see here. ] (]) 22:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Huh... your second third and fourth sentences are precisely what people have been trying to tell Tony. The fourth sentence in particular, about drama not helping Misplaced Pages, contradicts what you yourself have said in the past about drama serving to identify "useless users", when explaining to me why you're happy to generate it. I'm glad to see you've changed your mind - or is drama only destructive in some cases? Finally, your last sentence is misguided. Tony has been exhibiting chronic drama-generating behavior, and sweeping that issue under the rug again will only make it a bigger and worse drama eruption next time around. I hope that something happens during his week off to convince him to stop swaggering around with a banstick and an attitude. Looking away on the grounds that there's "nothing to see here" won't do it though. I hope your call to ignore the situation is simply what you say on the wiki, and that in some other, more private, setting, you're working to address the very real problem we're talking about. -]<sup>(])</sup> 15:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is significant private discussion on this issue; it would be unproductive to share it publicly. ] (]) 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Less than three months ago, Kelly, you wrote this after blocking MONGO: | |||
| :::''My block was intended as a "tap on the shoulder", to get his attention and underscore the message that flamewarring on third party talk pages is not acceptable. MONGO's reaction to it tells me that he is in dire need of an attitude adjustment, however, and I think he should consider either (a) a wikibreak or (b) resigning his adminship.'' | |||
| ::Have you changed your mind since then on blocking as taps on the shoulder? ] 16:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some people will react to a tap on the shoulder by stopping what they're doing and listening attentively to the tapper. Others will react by turning around and slugging the person doing the tapping. One has to exercise judgment in using such methods; I believe that Tony's judgment, in using such an approach with Giano, was misguided. Giano was clearly not in the mindset where he would react positively (in either the short or long term) to such a block. This should have been obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with the history of the situation. What Giano needed was for someone to talk to him, calmly and probably also privately, and slowly and quietly bang some sense into him. That someone needed to be someone he would respect, rather than someone he viewed as the enemy. Giano brought a great deal of this onto himself; laying all the blame for this situation on Tony's lap -- or on Carnildo's or the ArbCom's (for unspecified crimes) or Taxman, Rdsmith, and Danny (for controversially promoting Carnildo) -- is woefully misguided. This is very much in danger of turning into a lynch mob. Please don't live down to James' sarcastic characterization of Misplaced Pages as a dystopic ]. ] (]) 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Admin blocked because someone took his comments out of context. Tsk, tsk. Sounds like a bit of personal vendetta-ism going on here. This action (blocking Tony) is completely unwarranted. People need to get over themselves and not take things so seriously. ]''' <sup>]</sup>''' 22:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I suggest you look at Tony's talk page where he seems to make it clear that the relevant dif was intended exactly as he meant it. Furthermore, as I explained above the block was not just for that dif but the general disruptive behavior that Tony has been engaging in. Yes there is an encyclopedia here but if Tony keeps driving away the people who want to write it we have a problem. ] 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Psh. You seem to think that you know better than everyone else. However, it was you who blocked a long-term user - who erred; who show no remorse. And ''Tony'' is the problem? | |||
| ::: ] ] 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You have just described exactly what Tony did to Giano. Bittersweet irony. —] 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Being a longtime and helpful user is no excuse for driving away multiple users one of whom had multiple FAs. Your above comment also somehow seems to imply that possibly I'm a problem which is a bit odd since if you look at Tony's talk page you will note that I the person who went through the relevant logs related to the easlier wheel-warring accusations and argued that he hadn't wheel-warred. ] 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : If we're here to write an encyclopedia, well, Tony's action caused a most excellent conributor to leave and another one near doing so. If we choose to favor people that effectively write an encyclopedia, Tony's behaviour is even more problematic. | |||
| : Oh, and telling people to knock it off is quite incivil, if you ask me. This reaction like, "shut up and just work" (don't remember who said it on Tony's talk) is just revolting. Wikipedians are not expendable cogs to throw away and they're not citizens of a totalitarian state telling them to <s>get up to work</s>write an encyclopedia every morning. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: "Knock it off" is absolutely standard Committee parlance. Yes, that is exactly what it means. And, ahem, you obviously didn't listen to the Committee panel recording - cogs is exactly what we all are. "Totalitarian state" indeed - read WP:NOT again, especially "Misplaced Pages is not a democracy". We are ''not'' here for you to feel included. If you don't like that, go else where. That's the social contract we've all signed, and if you didn't read the fine print, well tough. | |||
| :: ] ] 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: James, I think you miss an issue here- people don't function well when treated as cogs or worse as "boils." You are welcome to run a Wiki of your own that treats everyone as machines. I doubt it will last long. ] 23:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Responding to Joshua's comment above that I would presumably have blocked Tony also. Noh... I do endorse Joshua's block, but Giano is a personal friend and I'm very upset that he has left. Therefore, I should not and hopefully would not have blocked Tony. I lost my cool when I saw Tony's disgusting attack, and said (and meant it) that I'd block unless he withdrew it. In my defense, I believe I would have reacted the same way at the same low triumph over a departed editor who ''wasn't'' a friend of mine. And I do believe I would have recovered before actually using the block button. Dear friends, from this we may draw a valuable lesson about the advantage of always warning before you block! It gives not only the presumptive blockee, but the blocker, an extra minute to think. Oh, and I would like to emphasize that I don't take orders from James F, and I'm surprised at his tone. To me it sounds more like standard parlance for calling dogs to heel. ] | ] 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ::::: I would even say that I'm surprised '''a lot''' at his tone. It is plain insulting. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, that put us in our place. Back to work, minions! | |||
| As it happens, I agree that this block will be entirely ineffective in addressing the problem, which it Tony's attitude. You only have to read the succession of complaints and suggestions on his talk page, and his totally dismissive responses, to understand that. Perhaps it would help if ''Tony'' would "knock it off" and get on with writing the encyclopedia, a task to which he has singlarly failed to contribute for as far back in his edit history as I care to look. I present you with the pinnacle of his contributions: ]. Enough said. | |||
| But even Tony is perhaps the worst case of a wider malaise. I used to enjoy being a Wikipedian, and doing my bit to spread knowledge. I ''used'' to. Now it seems like a constant uphill battle. What is wrong with this place? -- ] ] 23:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Hehe, I was about to mention that article too... | |||
| : As to answer your concerns: it is in my (not so) humble opinion pretty clear. As WP grows, more and more people seem to forget that the goal is to contribute, and not to spent time on endless wikilawyering. Consequently, a contributor that writes stuff is the central point to WP. Not the admins, as some people think. Being an admin does not make you superior. An admin's job is to mop, not to treat normal editors as his subordinates. | |||
| : Yes, some of editors are engaged in edit wars and stuff, but as long as the whole thing's getting discussed and is moving, any block is harmful (see the RFC on DMC's conduct as an example). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| James F said: ''Tony's comment was not at all, in any way, a personal attack; it was an accurate observation, though perhaps beladen with a little too much melodrama. Only those looking to take offence could possibly miscontrue it.'' | |||
| :I have to put my foot down and disagree in strong terms here. Only those with a strong determination to look the other way could misconstrue it as anything but a vile attack carefully worded to avoid technically falling under the sacred "PA" label. Using a metaphor doesn't give you a free out; you are still responsible in civil language for the metaphor you pick. —] (]) 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *James F, what the hell are you doing here all of a sudden? "The Committee" has parlance? The Committee for Public Safety, or the Arbitration Committee? And now Kelly shows up, too. Gosh. Getting involved now, and entirely for Tony's unilateral blocks, against process, is really wonderful. Your input is terribly appreciated, and especially the "idiots." It's just too darned bad that there are ''so many'' idiots, isn't it? Why, oh why, can't we all think as The Committee does? Why, oh why, can't we all block without thought, speak without moderation, and come back to taunt the way that Tony does? The Committee enjoys very, very, very, very, very little confidence, and the sooner it starts to realize that its tendency to view itself as a cadre is eroding what little confidence it ever had, the better. How, James F, have '''you''' been writing an encyclopedia? How, Kelly, have '''you''' been writing an encyclopedia? How has Tony Sidaway? I click on contributions and I really don't see many. Still, the Committee for Public Safety can tell us that we're all idiots for responding to someone calling "festering boil" an insult, because the Committee knows best, has a private language, and need not speak the same language as everyone else. ] 10:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Help, it's a conspiracy of our ] secretly plotting against 'everyone else'. Time for the 'plain man' to speak up? TINC? --] 10:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Elected representatives? Do you even know how the ArbCom was '''picked?''' Did you pay attention during the "election?" What about the clerks, which Tony represents so admirably? Were they elected? Wow. However, if you believe that they were elected, please inform me where the no confidence votes are to be lodged. Also, tell me when the next election is. Also, please tell me how, in a Lockean model, the once-elected have power without the will of the governed. ArbCom enjoys very, very, very, very, very little confidence at this point. Also, the point remains that those calling all of us "idiots" are showing up late, uninformed, and unreasonable. Still, tell me again how they're elected representatives, and I'll tell you a fable about King Log. ] 11:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::See here's the thing. Arbcom may not be ''purely'' elected - but each of them poled massively possitive votes when the community at large spoke up at the arbcom election. The people in whom the community, as a whole, had most confidence were appointed. Wheras individuals like you, with no mandate behind them, rant on about 'the will of the governed' and pronounce ex cathedra on the subject of the community's confidence. You presume to speak for 'the community'? On what basis? No, JamesF's idiot remarks, and Tony's responses may not have been well-advised. I'm not defending them. But I can sometimes have sympathy with the sense of exasperation at the self-righteous and self-appointed prophets of the 'democratic'.--] 11:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *In addition to Slim Virgin's response, let me just point out that I have ''every bit the mandate that Tony has.'' I am an administrator. Further, I have been here longer. Further, I have contributed far more content. Given that that content has been passed by community consent several times to the FA level, that's some mandate. Further, several of my policy ideas have become policy. I'd say, on any basis, I have as much, and yet I "rant," while Tony cannot be blocked for disruption. Amazing. And you've been following all this all along? You've been helping Tony? You've been trying to calm things? Right. That "ranting" thing: that's a huge help. As for whether I speak for the project when I say that the Committee for Public Safety has confidence, I speak on the basis of evidence. What evidence do you have? You say that they ''had approval,'' which is not strictly even true and certainly not germane to the present. Once more, you say that, "They went through an election, so they can speak to anyone any way they want and get a cordon sanitaire around them." Go, King Log, go! When do they come up for re-election? What is the mechanism for no-confidence? If you suckle at the teat of such an unfounded analogy as comparing them to a government (and I had thought, silly me, that they were not a government, but a '''dispute resolution''' body and that they were not supposed to '''ever''' be above other users...little did I know that I was being asked to vote for a ruler!), then answer those questions. ] 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well I look forward to the next AC election in Decemeber, when, by your logic, the community will seek to ouste the 'Committee on Public Saftey', and, no doubt, overwhelmingly endose your popular platform.--] 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Doc, please don't refer to respected users as "ranting." The facts are that Tony is an admin and yet has been blocked eight times in one year for 3RR, disruption, and personal attacks; he exercises his admin tools under an ArbCom restriction; he is extraordinarily rude and dismissive of people; he's been instrumental in the departure of a highly respected editor in the same week that editor had ''two'' of his six featured articles on the main page; and most importantly, he does all this in the context of himself not editing the encyclopedia. Tony would be the first to criticize this behavior in any other user. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 12:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::SV, I'm neither attacking nor defending Tony. I'm not getting into that. I was responding to Geogre's rather bizzare attack on arbcom as the 'Committee on Public Saftey' and his rather absurd claim to be the authentic voice of the community. I really don't know what to describe that as if not a 'rant'. Perhaps 'demagoguery'? --] 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You can only think that I was making such a claim if you have been paying absolutely no attention to the situation as it has developed over the last month, and '''that is''' part of my criticism. Now that Tony has gotten 24 hours for his actions, James F, Kelly Martin, and you show up. Fantastical is what it is. If you're ''not'' commenting on Tony's actions, then how can you say that his actions, and the failure of the ArbCom, is good or bad? If you ''had been'' paying attention, then you would know that we have Giano, Bishonen, ALoan, Paul August, and myself all either withdrawing for a time or quitting entirely over Tony and this bullflop. If this isn't enough, add to these names several others (at least 5) who are contemplating the same. This is what's called "evidence" of lack of confidence in the way that these users are being treated. It is on that basis that I say there is very little confidence in ArbCom, and to have them magically appear like pixies when Tony -- the self-appointed clerk -- gets acted against for his disruption, frivolous blocks, and unilateralism only erodes that more. The audience isn't probably going to accept being called "idiots" and probably won't "cut it out" because James F and Kelly Martin show up to tell us that we are all inferior to them. Nor will anyone respond well to apologists for them, especially when they claim that they're not really, really apologizing for what they said -- they just felt that they had to launch an attack on those they have been deriding. ] 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You don't get a free pass based on contributions. Some leniency, perhaps, but not a free pass. I brought this up the last time Giano got blocked for incivility but I'm not sure the point sunk in. I'm as saddened as anyone to lose valuable contributors, but we all volunteer here, after all, including the admins, and time will tell if the net of Giano's departure is negative or positive, as I'm not sure I'd paint this affair as entirely one sided, "good contributors fleeing" and nothing else. I think in fact there is some fallout (in the general case of people bucking against warnings, bucking against blocks) of good admins giving up, admins who are tired of being taken to task for trying to make this place better and who therefore choose not to participate in necessary admin functions. The irony of the claim that a warning was needed in this case, when a warning (and the response to it) was part of the reason for Giano's LAST block, is not lost on me either. I point this out without taking sides in the current disagreement of whether Tony was justified or not. ++]: ]/] 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I totally agree with you Geogre. Basically, calling other people "cogs" or "idiots" or whatever in that tune just because someone is an admin/arbitrator/clerk/whatever while the other side is not is plain revolting and insulting. The greatest threat of any organization is to be overcome by its own bureaucracy. I hope it won't be the case... :( -- ] <sup>]</sup> 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Note:'' For anyone who may not have seen it, ] has announced on his talk page that he is on a 7-day Wikibreak. ] 13:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Why should we believe that? - . --] | ] 12:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I took his word for it when he wrote it 36 hours ago. Since then he seems to have been unable to withhold his thoughts on a couple of RfA's where he has strong views, and he's been doing some talkpage archiving. I think it definitely qualifies as a highly reduced level of activity, anyway. ] 12:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The temptation to say something cutting, clever, or incendiary is high, but, whether Tony takes a voluntary break for ten minutes or ten days is somewhat irrelevant, since he has been the person imposing ''involuntary'' breaks of hours and days on people to "cool it" and to get their attentions. Further, as Tony's own words say, if he leaves or not, it will be his actions and decision. Thus he absolved himself of any responsibility for generating the departure of several users, not just Giano, so I think anyone who has been drawing attention to his behavior here should take the warm comfort he offered himself. ] 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just intended a point of information. I don't suggest it binds all wounds. ] 12:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This whole affair has been really disappointing. Giano needs to fucking cool it. Tony needs to stop being so fucking provocative towards otherwise good users. End of story. ] 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If it were the end of the story, a lot of people would agree. For a long time, people have agreed with both points, and both users' friends had said things to the effect, but the reason this rose to the level of AN and possible injunction (supposing it would be ''possible'' for a self-annointed clerk to have his case examined by the ''dispute resolution mechanism'' (not masters, not rulers, not superiors, not honored among users)), is the use of the block button. Tony has been very free with it. This is aggravating by hypocrisy (blocking people for language and then using worse). Giano never went back to become an administrator again, never sought to have power. Tony, in my opinion and the opinions of several others above, abused those powers and tenaciously refuses to even have his behavior examined. That is why we're here, instead of sending e-mails to users and telling them to step back. ] 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tony's behavior is being examined quite closely. So is yours. Please cool it. ] (]) 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Wonderful!''' I have been waiting to be examined quite closely. After all, I'm only editing articles and objecting to you and others of ArbCom employing imperatives instead of reason, only objecting to your considering yourselves anything other than parts of the dispute resolution process, and clearly that needs very, very close examination. Much better to threaten than to listen, after all. Even better would be to block instead of apologize and mandate rather than mediate. That's what the dispute resolvers do, is it? ] 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm wincing, because it's inevitable that Kelly Martin's last comment is just going to raise the temperature again. ] 15:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's the passive that does it. "Is being examined" leaves out ''by whom'' it is being examined, as well as why it cannot be examined by the unstated group implied. Further, my behavior "is being examined." If that does not imply a power differential, if not a ], then I must have some serious reading problems. Why do the heathens rage? ] 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Congratulations; you have successfully taken maximum offense and assumed the worst possible connotation of a wholly innocent statement, thereby insuring that you, too, are clearly part of the problem, and not part of the solution. That Tony's conduct has been and is being examined is obvious; one need merely read this discussion to see that. Likewise, I'm sure everyone reading this discussion has examined your behavior and reached some conclusion; at this point mine is that you are ranting for the sake of ranting, and not actually trying to help Misplaced Pages, and as such I wish you would just quit it. (And to think that I've always respected you, at least until now.) I'm sure there are any number of private examinations going on as well -- both by the ArbCom (the issue has been broached on the private mailing list, although I shall not discuss details) and by other "cabals", the number of which on Misplaced Pages is almost certainly countless. However, I question whether your recent actions are intended to help ''solve'' the problem; if they are, they are very poorly crafted attempts. I strongly urge you -- and everyone else -- to think about forty times before posting any more heated invective to this or any other Misplaced Pages discussion page. ] (]) 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I suspect that the smart move here - and probably at the 'crats noticeboard as well - is to archive this thread as having reached the point where nothing lis likely ot be achieved other than restating the dissent which we already know exists. <b>]</b> 16:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Inappropriate username == | |||
| ] | |||
| It's probably already blocked, but I thought someone ought to take a look at this one... | |||
| —<font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="2f690d">]</font><font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="a81e51">]</font><font color="125181">]</font> 00:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think this one might need a block too (presumably the same user) ] —<font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="2f690d">]</font><font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="a81e51">]</font><font color="125181">]</font> 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Another: I don't know if I should keep a running list of these: ] | |||
| Please use ] next time, and please simplfy your sig. ]] 00:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Apologies, I'm still rather new, so I'm not really familiar with the processes behind this. May I ask how to simply my signature? I won't sign with the automatic one, then, now, until I figure it out. --] | |||
| These were all blocked previously. You can check yourself before posting to WP:AIV. One of the easy ways is to go to the user's contributions and at the top the page it will list "For <user name> (Talk | block | Block log | Logs)". Click on the "Block log". --] 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Okay, thank you very much...so sorry for the trouble I caused - it was purely newbie blunders, since I've never ventured near this part of Misplaced Pages before *sweatdrop* And Thank you to Yanksox for letting me know about my signature...I was genuinely unaware that it was as long as it was or as disruptive...I hope this one is a bit better? If not, I can prune it down again. —<font color="8100b4">]</font><font color="2f690d">]</font><font color="8100b4">]</font> 05:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's good, lots of users have a green-colored letter in their signature to signify Esperenza. ] 08:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Phishing from wiki@wikimedia.org ? == | |||
| I received this strange e-mail: | |||
| Someone (probably you, from IP address 24.121.44.189) requested that | |||
| we send you a new Misplaced Pages login password for en.wikipedia.org. | |||
| The password for user "Janke" is now "XXXXXX". You should log in | |||
| and change your password now. If someone else made this request | |||
| or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to | |||
| change it, you may ignore this message and continue using your old password. | |||
| What's going on here? The IP above is not even close to mine! Is someone else trying to get my logon password? Greetings, --] | ] 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : It's someone else asking for a password reminder, it sends that to your registered and confirmed email address, as the message you got says "If someone else made this request ... you may ignore this message and continue using your old password". As to the other persons motivation, as an IP that user only has one edit so I can see no obvious connection. Beyond that it's guessing, could be someone thinking they could get your password (though that seems unlikely), could be someone who can't remember their own account details etc. --] 06:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Only one edit, yes, but probably from an anon IP that is changing with each access (such as AOL)? That edit was certainly not a newbie edit... --] | ] 06:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::For a brute force attack, requesting a new password increases the size of your target, because there are now two passwords that will work. However, I tend to ignore such emails - six random numbers and letters are fairly hard to crack (2 billion variants). I suspect there are admins here who receive several of these every week, especially those with accounts on several Wikimedia projects. - ] (] • ]) 11:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, thanks for the clarification. I'm a little wiser now... ;-) --] | ] 12:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've already had a few of these. I don't know what the wiki source code is like, but depending upon how these random passwords are generated there may well be a vulnerability here that someone is trying to exploit - I can certainly think of some hypotheticals. ] 00:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The most probable explanation is that the person attempted to register an account with your name. This failing, they supposed that they might have already created it, and had a reminder mail sent. When this didn't work they gave up. ] 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This article is blank. Somebody has vandalized it. I don't know if that's proper place to put such an information, but I don't know where else do it. ] 06:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed. Next time you can fix it yourself by going back into the page history, editing the last good version, and saving it. That overwrites the vandalised copy. Regards, ] 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''NOTE:''' Please note that IP 65.105.179.195 appears to be on a blanking-vandalizing spree on Israel subjects, and needs to be blocked immediately. --] | ] 07:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Seems to have stopped vandalising yesterday. -]|] 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Macedonia, yet again... == | |||
| At ], Niko Silver refuses to acknowledge that the neutral form in use on Misplaced Pages is "Republic of Macedonia", even in articles on or related to the European Union. Or am I wrong? —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I dunno - the ] says that "Republic of Macedonia" is the "official internal name" and that "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is the "official international name". --] 10:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *If it's worth anything. They're referred to as ] in Eurovision song contests. But I don't see why either would be more neutral than the other. Removing Yugoslavia from the name may come across as hiding info that is significantly important. - ]|] 12:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As far as I was aware, RoM would prefer "Macedonia", Greece would prefer "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", and most Misplaced Pages pages use "Republic of Macedonia" as a neutral compromise. The question is whether this should apply to all pages, or only to some; by Niko Silver's arguments, ] should be at ], however... <tt>;p</tt> —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] 14:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ummm, no. That is not the case. Greece would prefer "Republic of ]" or "Slavomacedonia" or "Vardar Macedonia". The country itself would prefer "Republic of Macedonia". The compromise solution in the UN was ]. So, this is not Greek POV, it is int'l POV, as described in featured article ]. EU calls that country FYROM, and the country itself addresses officially the EU as FYROM. Not as RoM (and definitely not as "Slavomacedonia"). Interested parties kindly contribute to this discussion in the ]. ] 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Influx of users using personal experience over verifiable sources == | |||
| Apparently, ] has invited his friends (at least six of them) to oppose the deletion of his self-bio, filed at ]. Most of them have only a single contribution, which is to that AfD (which Lentower created and contributed to). At least one, ], has now started to contribute to other articles, with a tendency to refer to his own experience rather than verifiable sources. I'm busy, can someone keep an eye on these users? Thanks. - ] (] • ]) 10:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Fair enough, but I not that ] gave a reasonable reference for the change, from the subject's own website no less, and a credible reason why the original date was wrong. <b>]</b> 13:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Subjects' own websites are generally not considered ]. ]|] 18:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That is not always true. It really depends on who the subject is and what is being referenced. ] 19:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Subjects' own websotes ''are'' generally reliable sources for facts regarding the subject (e.g. you can cite a company website for numbers of employees, or a person's website for their date of birth). I can't say I've formed a firm view on this particular edit, but it looks OK on the surface. <b>]</b> 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The Arbitration Committee has ruled in the past that it's inappropriate for users to add links to their own websites. --] ] 23:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't think it's as simple as "never add a link to your own Web site". Doing so is a bad idea upwards of 90% of the time, sure, but I don't think there's a hard and fast rule against it and it sounds like this might reasonably fall into the other <10%. ] 07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sockpuppet of banned user: Please block == | |||
| ]'s latest sockpuppet, ], has been vandalizing ] with a Pnatt-like motive and results. He also appears to be talking to himself on the talk page, but that is not necessarily true. -- <font color=blue>]<small> ]<small> ]<small> ]</small></small></small></font> 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I have indefinitely blocked {{user|LordByronKing}} for repeatedly inserting his name and nn books into articles all over Misplaced Pages. He has yet to respond to any messages on his Talk page. I have indicated that I will entertain an unblock request if he pledges to stop the spamming. ]|] 18:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Temporary injunction in the ]== | |||
| For the duration of this case, any of the named parties may be banned, by an uninvolved administrator, from ] or related pages for disruptive edits. | |||
| Affected users are listed in the case, and have all been notified. The affected articles (and two templates) have all been labelled with appropriate notices. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee. --] 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] Accused of violating ] protocol == | |||
| What is going on ? I was visiting with DreamGuy when I found the ] matter. Anything to this matter ?] 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :According to this ], ] found it likely that ] is a sockpuppet of DreamGuy. Both disappeared in the next few days; DG has only made a few edits.--] ]/] 19:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just got home from the pub so excuse my bad grammar. This has been discussed before. Nothing much more to add bar the info above but the evidence is overwhelming. Both had similar edit times, had similar edit summaries, edited the same articles and the account was used to voilate the 3RR rule, e.g. Victrix would rv 3 times then DG would step in and vise versa. ] 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| '''Loads''' of vandalism in the last hour, a second ip is just starting to get to work. Needs sprotecting really. Probably at least half my fault because I posted on the message boards at the site saying that we really needed to get a decent page up that was proportionate to the size of the site. Current vandalistic users on wikipedia are banned from the site too. ] 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Semi-protected, hopefully in a reasonably non-vandalised state. The article does need some serious work though. ] 00:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Favouring admins involved in 3RR violations? == | |||
| I was going to drop this matter, but I am still uneasy about it and decided to interrupt my wikibreak to get at least get some community comments on the matter. ], an admin has recently engaged in revert war with {{IPuser|154.20.161.143}} with a total of 6 reverts over two days (including 4 reverts within 24 hours) on {{article|Paranthropus}} within 24 hours labelling the revers as ''vandalism''. However, the anon editor was trying to discuss this matter on the talk page, and in a very civil way. The dispute was over the accuracy of the article and the reliability of the article sources. The anon user reported the UtherSRG to ] where he was himself blocked by ] for 3RR violation and UtherSRG was left without as much as a note on his talk page. | |||
| I came into this incident when {{IPuser|154.20.161.143}} put up an unblock request describing the matter. I found his 3RR report, reviewed it, and not realising that ] was an administrator, I have blocked him for 24 hours and put a note on his talk page informing him of the block. A couple of seconds later, on the admin channel on IRC, I was informed that I had just blocked an admin. After 10 minutes of discussion on IRC, ] decided that because a lot of his reverts were reverting {{tl|unreferenced}} tags on a "referenced" article he could be unblocked. | |||
| '''''However''''', at the beginning of the revert war, there were '''''absolutely 0''''' references in the article (see the version at the time of ), later on the anon explained his concerns on the talk page, put in an unreferenced tag, and a disputed assertion tag on one of the statements, this again was reverted as vandalism using . The <s>admin</s> anon reverted the revert asking for discussion, this was , more links were added by the UtherSRG, the anon expressed futher very legitimate concerns about the reliability of the online sources and about neutrality of the article and put in POV and unreferenced tags but was again reverted multiple times. UtherSRG has made only two small comments on the talk page, not even bothering to address the last detailed statement describing his rationale for ''each tag'' - instead of addressing it 4 reverts were made, including 3 admin rollbacks. | |||
| I am not happy that an admin was favoured in this case for what clearly looks to me like a revert war NOT vandalism reversion as the edit summaries suggest. And I am not happy that admins can run around using their admin rollbacks in revert wars without decent attempts at discussion. I don't agree with the technicality used to lift the block on UtherSRG, that was pointed out to me on IRC - i.e. that the {{tk|unreferenced}} tags are meant to refer to articles with absolutely 0 references. An anon has no way of knowing all the tags available on wikipedia, otherwise he could have used something more like: {{tl|Primarysources}}, which even I did not know of until just a couple of minutes ago! And in any case these are not the only tags that were reverted. For me it looks like that UtherSRG, who got out of this unscathed, is more at fault than the anon who was blocked for "3RR violation and disruption" while actually trying to discuss the matter and being the one who reported the incident in the first place! | |||
| So I would like to know what everyone else thinks on this matter.--] 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>I have found one place where I write "the admin" instead of "the anon" so I went back and replaced the instances where I referred to UtherSRG as "the admin" with his name. Nothing else is changed--] 00:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :I didn't mark any of the reverts as vandalism. I often use the as it is very convenient and gives an automatic and very neutral edit summary. My first rollback was followed immediately by an edit where I add a reference, countering the anon's complaint. Etc. If the anon has relevant information to add to the article they should do so instead of complaining at the state of the artcle and slapping tags on it. I didn't add the majority of the information, but I helped clean up the edits of several other, well informed, editors. Perhaps my biggest offense is ], where I have little patience for non-productive armchair quarterbacking. The anon showed little interest in editing, only in complaining that the article didn't reflect the POV they felt was more valid. - ] ] 00:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] and the ] arbitration case says to '''never''' use the rollback for any old reason, for '''only''' vandalism. Rollback summaries are essentailly blank ones: vandalism is the only self-explanatory reason. Otherwise it should be explained. ] 07:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::This I did not know. I do not (and can not) keep up to date on all of the Wiki rules and policies. There are way too many and they change way too frequently to keep current on. Taht said, the edit summary of the rollback '''must''' be changed to indicate it is reverting vandalism if, indeed, that is the current policy. Until the edit summary matches the policy and is changed from its neutral wording to one that states it is revertin vandalism, then the policy is flawed and should be disregarded as it doesn't match the effect of the software. - ] ] 12:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| So UtherSRG was unnblocked because he technically didn't break the 3RR since he only reverted the {{tl|POV}} tag twice, and removed the {{tl|unreferenced}} tag. But if that is so, then I technically did not break 3RR either. How can I be at fault but not him? | |||
| I was not aware that adding external links was considered citing sources. On the Paranthropus talk page I explained why I had added the unreferenced tag. If it is true that external links are considered references, that could have been explained to me on the talk page and I would not have re-added the same tag. | |||
| :''"If the anon has relevant information to add to the article they should do so instead of complaining at the state of the artcle and slapping tags on it. I didn't add the majority of the information, but I helped clean up the edits of several other, well informed, editors. Perhaps my biggest offense is WP:BITE, where I have little patience for non-productive armchair quarterbacking. The anon showed little interest in editing, only in complaining that the article didn't reflect the POV they felt was more valid. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2006"'' | |||
| I find this statement offensive and erroneous. In the Parathropus talk page I clearly said:'' "There is no consensus in the scientific community that the species A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus belong in the genus Paranthropus. They are commonly referred to as A. aethiopicus, A. boisei and A. robustus in current peer reviewed articles and books. To provide a neutral viewpoint, both models of classification systems should be described in detail. For these reasons I have added a disputed tag. Please do not remove until article is updated to be NPOV."'' and ''"What I am suggesting is that BOTH models of classification systems are mentioned and described in detail. For these reasons, I have added a POV tag. Please do not remove the tag until both classification systems are given the equal attention which they deserve"'' I was not trying to promote my own POV as I do not have an opinion on which genus the three species belong to. All I was attempting to do by adding the tags was trying to bring attention to the false statement that there is a consensus on that subject in the scientific community. I even provided references on the talk page to show that it was not my personal point of view, but that of textbooks. There are many different ways to contribute to wikipedia, just because I don't make major changes to the article does not mean my edits should be discounted. IMO, alerting others that an article is POV is productive editing (if not, why even have the tags). I would also like to note I tried to continue the discussion on the talk page with UtherSRG, but he responded by saying "(''rv I tked, we disagreed, i have nothing left to say.'')" which I found to be very discourteous. ] 03:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Could you state the case briefly? If the point is that someone who has a sysop bit was given false favor in an edit warring situation, then this is a serious matter. Nobody should edit war. Admins especially should not edit war. --] 03:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Very brief summary''' edit war on {{article|Paranthropus}} between anon ] and admin ]. On anon's report to ] the anon was blocked, UtherSRG was not blocked. I blocked UtherSRG when responding to anon's unblock request,without realising he was an admin, after IRC discussion someone else unblocked him on what seems to be a technicality over tag definitions to me. Either way, even 3RR was technically not violated, they were both revert warring.--] | |||
| ::I don't understand what you mean here or what Glen S means in the unblock summary. I count 5 reverts by UtherSRG within 24 hours. It makes no difference that both were revert warring or that he was removing a reference tag on an ostensibly referenced article. —]→] • 05:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well the {{tl|unreferenced}} tag does say that the article cites ''no'' sources, since the article has no sources putting in this tag is techincally wrong, that is what ] had meant at least. Though I don't really see this as a valid excuse for reverting.--] 08:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Remove ] whitespace == | |||
| As I'm not trusted with admin tools, could someone go and remove the excess whitespace at ]. It's because it has now been edited with a hidden comment warning, telling users to be more considerate to outside users to stop people mailing ] and complaining. I'm not too happy that there's any message there at all as I mentioned in the talk page, but before anything is done about the message, please remove the whitespace. - ]]] 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've reverted the commented warning for now, because, as I said in my edit summary, this is a template which people subst without ever reading the full text contained in the template. And, frankly I couldn't care less if spammers are whining about their spam being deleted. That I didn't say in the edit summary. I suggest further discussion is taken to ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm of the opinion that such a warning should be manually inserted in situations where civility actually becomes a problem. The majority of AFD pages consist of drive-by, pile-on "votes" in one direction or another with very little accompanying commentary. However a few of them actually evolve into meaningful, or possibly inflammatory, discussion, and may require a warning shot across the bow. Perhaps as an ironic counterpoint to {{]}}, we need a {{]}} template. Thoughts? —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 21:19, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted Misplaced Pages Page == | |||
| if you search for Jeffree Star the page is deleted and i don't realise why this would be so. | |||
| I'm not that good with the user tools so could someone put the page back on or at least start it up? | |||
| Thank's :] <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small> | |||
| :The page ] was deleted because it does not assert the ] of its subject. If he became notable he'll get an article until then this was correctly deleted and won't be recreated. Please read ] and ] for details on the specific notability guidelines that apply. Thanks, ] 03:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just a note. The article has been deleted now by ''''''six'''''' different admins. ]|] 03:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for Unblock == | |||
| I take my rejection straight to ] on this so called "community ban." Since it is through the community users rather than the formal committee i feel that RFC is sufficient rather than Arb-comm. Please let me come back ] 06:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>Hi Le Wiki Brah. Perhaps it would be a better idea to speak to Tony Sidaway first as opposed to filing an RfC? </s>-- ] 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Silly me, I didn't see the thread above -- ] 12:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Code bug == | |||
| Sigh hope I'm in the right place. Bug in the page code for the entry on DDT. Box content on right-hand side not able to appear. | |||
| *I'm afraid this is the wrong place. Try ]. = ]|] 11:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Block to review == | |||
| I have blocked ] for the 3RR violation on ] - 5 reverts in two hours, user was warned. Posting here since I was involved in the dispute] 11:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Generally speaking, don't block users you're in a dispute with. If they need a block, get another admin involved. — ''']''' '']'' '']'' 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree with Werdna on this matter; I also agree with the need for the 3RR block. I would recommend allowing the block to stand, but definitely don't do it again. ] * ] 12:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] made an edit to add ] to the article ]. The following edits were all concerned with adding and removing this category. There were 5 reverts to delete it. He only made 4 reverts to reinstate it (the first of his 5 edits was not a revert). His first edit was at 10.28. The first and second reverts against him were at 10.32 and 10.36 by ]. The third was at 10.43 by ]. The fourth at <s>11.47</s> 10.47 by Irpen (his 3rd revert) and the fifth by Alex Bakharev (his 2nd revert) at 11.16. | |||
| This was an edit war which all three users engaged in. As it was two editors acting against one, 133.41.4.46 would inevitably fall foul of 3RR first. It does not speak well of any of the editors involved, particularly an admin, especially when the latter blocked his opponent and made his preferred edit 2 minutes later. | |||
| 133.41.4.46 made his 3rd rv at 10.46 and was warned for 3RR a minute later. However, at 10.43 the 3rd rv had actually been made against him (Bakharev's 1st rv, following 2 by Irpen). | |||
| At 10.57, 133.41.4.46 had left a justification for his edit on Bakharev's talk page. There was no response to this and at 11.07, Irpen made his 3rd rv and the 4th in total against 133.41.4.46., who rv 3 minutes later and was blocked. Then Bakharev made his 2nd rv and the 5th in total against 133.41.4.46. | |||
| The net effect is that an editing decision has been achieved by force rather than argument, and that an adroit use of the rules has been employed to achieve this. It is not in wiki's interest to tolerate such practice. Two users acting in concert have been as guilty in spirit, if not the strict letter of the law, as the single user. | |||
| I commend Bhakarev for bringing this to AN, but he cannot expect to receive a "get out of jail free" card for doing so. I propose that all three editors involved need to back off and cool down, and if Bhakarev considers that a block is needed to do this, then he and Irpen should also receive one; or he may decide that the block on 133.41.4.46 was unjustified in the circumstances and remove it, in order to <s>respond to</s> continue the dialogue which 133.41.4.46 initiated on his talk page.<s> and which he has so far ignored.</s> <small>See clarification below</small> | |||
| ] 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Clarification: 133.41.4.46 made the post initiating dialogue at 10.57. 133.41.4.46's final edit was at 11.10. Bhakarev responded to 133.41.4.46's post at 11.12 and then immediately blocked 133.41.4.46 at 11.14 (at which time Irpen also responded to the post). | |||
| :] 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This situation needs some more responses to it. ] 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The edits to ] were repeats of the edits of ] (see e.g. ) so all the five edits are reverts. The edit were intensively discussed by Irpen on Alex Kov's talk page ] and ] he did not answer. ] and the anonim are the same person. They not only do the same edits to ], but also highly unusual edits to Rurikids princes see history of ], ], ] as well Japanese prefectures. He did not answer Irpen's comments. In any case I warned the user about the 3RR rule but he choose to ignore it. That is my explanation. If you feel that I should be blocked, please go ahead, but Irpen did not do anything illegal, no violated any policy. ] 22:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your offer of being blocked, which shows integrity, though it is not something which I will do unilaterally. I wondered if something of what you said was occurring, but, assuming that it is true, a different approach is preferable. You are stating that a user is employing socks abusively, and the tack should be to resolve that situation. The anon has been editing as such for some time. Two against one, as in the current situation, always looks bad, especially when one is a blocking admin. It doesn't help our reputation for fairness. ] 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :BTW I find the Tyrenius's interpretation of ] to be extremely unusual. In my opinion the whole point of 3RR is that it is a surrogate of polling: if three editors prefer one version and two prefer another than the most popular opinion wins. So do not worry if you are right somebody else will restore your version. Now, if the interpretation is that you are not allowed to revert if somebody did two similar reverts before you then the effect on the editing process is quite dramatic. I am not sure how Wiki is suppose to work if everybody is allowed to revert against the consensus and the consensus is not allowed to revert back. ] 03:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, it is a completely nonsensical interpretation of 3RR. 3RR applies to individual editors, not groups of editors. If one were to rule according to Tyrenius's view, it would mean that one editor could hold an article hostage against the will of any number of other editors, and we would have a "1RR rule", not a "3RR rule". Rather, if one individual is reverted by three other editors, that is not a sign that they have all violated 3RR, but rather a sign of consensus against that first editor's view. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'd disagree with you there. The ] exists to encourage that people stop reverting, and actually take the issue to the talk page. Those reverting changes which are not vandalism should include "discuss on talk page" in their edit summaries. The 3RR rule can only be broken by a group when enforcing recient ''agreed'' consensus. Edit summaries do not provide enough space to include reasoning, preventing most forms of ''informed'' consensus being reached without having to use the talk page. If groups could act to ignore the 3RR, meatpuppetry and gang actions would become the prefered means to edit. ] 03:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::3RR in no way applies to groups, and never has. Groups who agree on something are not a "gang", or "meatpuppets", but rather "consensus". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I completely agree with JayJG, at some stage I thought I have gone mad. Besides the talk page to the article and its archives are plastered with the discussion if the ] was a genocide and how to better formulate the facts. The latest section ] is specifically about the category. There was also a discussion on the ] page that belong to the blocked user. Really the ] is a result of long arguments and is a compromise ] 04:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I agree as well. 3RR does not apply to "groups", but to individual editors. ] <small>] • ]</small> 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Jayjg, consider a fairly common case wereby a group of editors wish to refuse to follow policy. In cases like this, their acts are simply not consensus. Misplaced Pages uses ''informed'' consensus, based on an understanding of policy, guidelines, good practice and so on. One does not create informed consensus through the brute pushing of a viewpoint (about all that's practical in the edit summary length), but through detailed discussion and evaluation. If 3RR represented a consensus, this would send the message that ignoring the concept of informed consensus is perfectly acceptable. 3RR must apply to groups also to stop group edit wars, another common occurance wereby the editors of an article all take sides, and there are enough of them to prevent 3RR from being noticably reached. If a consensus has formed on the talk page, the best approach is for the first reverter to state "See the talk page". If the original editor cannot find the entry, they then may leave a summary of "could not find the section". The next revert should then either point out the most recient clear consensus, or state "Let's dicuss this". It seems to me in this case that the group reverting was justified, but they allowed an edit summary argument to occur rather than continuing to attempt to drag the matter onto the talk page ] 04:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::3RR appling to "groups", not just individuals? No. Never has, and never will. Talk about "policy creep." Lina, you've been contributing to the project now, what, like two months? You may want to consider spending a little more time contributing to articles and getting to better understand policy and convention here before lecturing us on how policy is applied. Especially to arbcom members. ] 05:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I note that you choose to use the age of my account as an argument, rather than actually debating the subject via reason. ] probably applies here. If you check through my edits, you'll see I am contributing quite nicely, and the situations I am refering to are occuring in articles I am editing. The literal interpretation behind the 3RR rule does not apply to groups, no. But the ''spirit'' of the rule is to prevent edit wars, which often may not consist of only two users, or one user verses 'the rest'. ] 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: This is not a case of BITE, rather, this is a case of experience mattering. FM clearly stated that you might want to spend time "getting to better understand policy and convention here" - a gentle reminder that perhaps you simply don't understand the policy well, not a bite. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::She understands it perfectly: "the ''spirit'' of the rule is to prevent edit wars." ] 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: More so to prevent single editors from edit warring against consensus. When there are many editors in two groups edit warring protection is in order. If a single user disagrees with the general consensus it is that users job to either convince the other editors (or if that fails) get an outside mediator or opinion to step in. 3RR simply has no bearing on groups of editors. ] 20:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I just came online and found out this amazing thread from the note left by ] at my talk. If he had some questions on the issue, he could have asked for details if he is too busy to spend a little time to clear this up from the edit histories on his own. I would have happily answered all his questions and so would Alex, who found himself bizzardly accused in Admin abuse. | |||
| Here is the situation. Anon IP {{user|133.41.4.46}}, who is also {{user:133.41.4.47}} which both are also {{user|Alex Kov}} who chooses to edit without logging in switching between these two IPs and in all likelihood also {{user|Oleksiy}} appears to be a non-responding sterile revert warrior. He has his views. That's fine of course. What's not fine is that he resorts to abusive methods to force his POV into the articles, such as switching between IPs and usernames, not responding to attempts to talk, to calls to register and/or edit from an account, and when he finally said something, he just made a bunch of curt statements that defy days and days of talk discussions. | |||
| His entire edit history to this day consisted from: | |||
| * a well referenced piece from ] article | |||
| *sterile revert warring in several articles trying to insert the ] images he drew in defiance of historical research (see ). Involved articles include ], ], ] and ] (in the latter he was also removing a photo from a historical monument as well as the dab on top | |||
| *Finally, on the very same day something got to him to start a sterile rv war aimed at adding cat:Genocide to ]. The latter issue has been discussed at ] to death and the current version reflects the outcome of that discussion that the article should reflect that some researchers consider it a Genocide but such a view is not as generally accepted as e. g. for ]. I am well involved on that article and I wrote much for it. I participated in lengths of discussions at the talk. I am intimately familiar with the state of the art in the research of the issue. The anon/sock was first reverting in silence and after multiple calls at several talk pages to talk, he defiantly stated that some laws exist that claim that Holodomor was indeed a Genocide. I pointed to him that no law can say such a thing. The law he probably means is the ]. Convention provides only a definition and does not list any specific cases. As such, it is up to scholars to agree or disagree on whether the definition fits a specific case. The scholarly debate is still unresolved as presented in the article. He did not respond and resorted to sterile reverting despite being warned multiple times. | |||
| When finally Alex Bakharev blocked the editor who did nothing but disruption we get these strange "reviews", like the 14:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) post by Tyrenius. More can be seen at anon's talks and ]. The statement that "The net effect is that an editing decision has been achieved by force rather than argument," is plain incorrect. The article was simply restored to pre POV-push attempt that it reached through prolonged discussion and search by multiple editors. The "..don't be reckless" clause at ] is there for a very good reason. I thoroughly agree with statements above that revert wars are harmful and useless and discussion should be always preferred but with certain editors it is imnpossible to discuss things. Editors who refuse to talk, ignore calls to read past discussions, refuse to use registered accounts and instead use multiple IPs to circumvent 3RR by such activity exhaust the ] guideline and need to be tought to become responsive if they can't be talked into that. If Tyrenius or anyone else has more questions on the matter, I am looking forward to hear from him. --] 07:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I spent some time analysing not only the edits, but also the article talk page. Each situation has to be judged on its own merits. I am not suggesting a rigid rule that should be imposed everywhere. I am assessing whether this situation was conducted properly, and I find there are aspects which don't meet the standard we should aim for. Accusations of sockpuppetry are being made now: those things should have been addressed initially, not afterwards here, when the editor is not even able to participate. 3RR is never an excuse to get away with reverting 3 times: it is a barrier to reverting any more than three times. The spirit of this is that there should not be mindless edit wars. | |||
| :I am concerned that there was not dialogue, and that, even though the anon tried to initiate it, it was only responded to 2 minutes before he was then blocked. That is not something to be encouraged. The editors opposing him were relying on being able to escape the strict 3RR by having more reverts at their disposal. This is not in accord with the aim of the 3RR rule. That rule operates when there is a consensus to stop a rogue editor, but two editors is hardly a consensus. I don't find that this short but intense session of reverts over a single category in this way reflects well on any of the participants, especially when it is finally resolved by one of the involved editors blocking his opponent. | |||
| :Irpen's basis of argument is also questionable, as he has decided that the term "genocide" can only be agreed if scholars are united in its application, and that its use by governments is invalid. This, to say the least, is not definitive, but is now seen as the arbiter of consensus over the issue in this article. | |||
| :Some of the arguments above have descended to ''ad hominem'' (and ''pro hominem''). That is not the sign of a good argument. Let us address the points on their merit, not on who made them. | |||
| :] 11:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Tyrenius, with all due respect, it is not up to one individual to judge what is or not "in accord with the aim of the 3RR rule." The dialogue on that was established ages ago on the talk page, so if a rogue editor omits to read the dialogue, it's just about his problem. | |||
| :: And btw, the editor in question probably created socks to avoid the block, making his behaviour even more questionable. The issue was debated and is explained quite well in the "Was holodomor genocide?" section of the article. Being rogue does not prevent one from reading the damzor thing. | |||
| :: Consequently, I would rather not push things further and not run against a respectable and well-established policy. | |||
| :: Personally I endorse Alex's block fully. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not disputing the block, so that is irrelevant. Nor am I challenging the policy: ] makes it clear that there is no licence to neatly nip up to 3RR and be in the clear. If there is edit warring it is blockable with less reverts. The policy is the spirit of that, and not the letter of the law. I've made my points above, but if there is no consensus that they are of concern, then I'll leave it. ] 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The whole purpose of 3rr is to let tempers cool down when a conflict between two people gets too heated. It is obvious to me that if others revert a particular user, we are dealing with an entirely different situation. Sometimes this happens with very obvious cases of vandalism or trolling. Sometimes it happens in more complicated situations. But no matter what, when it happens it is not because one person has lost his or her cool. Multiple people reverting a user is an example of the community at work. | |||
| Let's really look at this proposal to see how absurd it is. What is being suggested is this: once a person has been reverted three times, they are immune from being reverted. is this really the situation we want here? I do not think so.] | ] 10:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What is being suggested is that 1RR is optimal followed by other solutions. This should involve discussion if the involved editors are in good faith. If there is a deliberate violation of consensus, then they can be warned for abusive behaviour and sanctioned if they persist. If thre is a sockpupper, then they can be blocked as such. I hope you find these suggestions less absurd. ] 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tirenius, I find your suggestions not just non-absurd, but excellent. The problem isn't that what you say is wrong. It isn't! However, you are making a set of entirely correct statements but the problem is that they are not applicable to the particular case. 1RR is optimal, true. Non-reverting is even better. Discussing at talk between many editors with different views who are all acting in good faith in search of consensus is an ideal solution for an ideal world. This solution could not be applied in this case because the situation is different. The rogue user resorted to a series of sterile reverts using anon ip accounts. He repeatedly defied all attempts to engage him into any meaningful discussions. He was asked to log in which he also refused to do. Finally, he supplied his final revert with a frivolous statement that cannot be interpreted as a "discussion" but makes it clear that he either did not read the talk page where it was discussed or choose to simply disregard everything said there. | |||
| Socks are to be blocked in their own right. Users who resort to sterile reverts, then are asked to discuss, refuse to do so and persist with reverting are not proper candidates to have discussions with. In such case, there is nothing else to do but revert the user. That many users do so proves the consensus or at least violation of ] "...but don't be reckless" clause. 3RR is by no means an entitlement. It is a guideline based on the principle that edit warring is harmful but discussions are preferable. However, you can't force the user into the discussion if he adamantly refuses to and ignores all the past discussions. There is nothing else left to do with such user but revert him, ask him many times to explain himself and, and if he persists with sterile revert wars, he's got to be blocked. 3RR is a very useful guideline ''both'' by a letter and by a spirit. --] 22:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Shanghai bus deleted by mistake== | |||
| While editing Shanghai Bus, the server went down. Now the text is deleted, and I can't get it back no matter how many times I try to paste my edit in. It's blank. I don't want to be named a vandal. --Outlook | |||
| :It's fixed; don't worry. Take a look at the five bullet points at the top of ] to learn how to do this yourself in the future. Happy editing. ~ ] 13:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == G.I. Joe character list DELETED without cause. It was a valid list. == | |||
| ] 14:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am the creator of a page that was formerly found at http://en.wikipedia.org/G.I._Joe_character_list | |||
| It listed a name of every character from the series. Dozens of these names also had links to wikipedia pages others have created about those characters. | |||
| I believe it is a very valuable and valid page. | |||
| Why the sudden deletion? | |||
| I checked the deletion logs, but they don't even list it. | |||
| Since I see other series have pages with list of all characters from that series, complete with links to wikipedia articals about those characters, I don't understand why mine was deleted. Surely it is the result of vandalism. | |||
| This information is listed nowhere else. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/GI_Joe | |||
| The main G.I. Joe page has a link to my list. And the list of hundreds of names wouldn't really fit on that page. | |||
| Can someone undelete this please, and tell me if it was a vandal that destroyed it somehow? | |||
| :Um, the list seems to be there: ]. Am I missing something? --] (]) 14:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Huh? I still see it - ]. —]]] 14:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There was some sort of weirdness going on. I went there and it gave me the "Misplaced Pages does not have an article by this name" page, but didn't have a deletion log. In fact, the history log was still available and when I clicked "edit this page" it looked like the article. I clicked "save page" without changing anything and the page was back (with no record of any edit by me). Seems like some sort of glitch? --] 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps not clearing your cache resulted in this? ] <small>(])</small> 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I thought it perhaps had something to do with the database error of yesterday. I had someone today thinking I deleted an article. The article indeed seemed gone. ] did the trick. ] ] 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| FYI, I noticed what appears to be the same problem with a different article, on 16 or 17 September. On the page ], I clicked on the link for ] and got the "Misplaced Pages does not have an article by this name" page. I did Search for ] and got the same results both from the Go and when clicking on ] in the list of Search results. ] is fine now, though. -- ] 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mccready is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to Pseudoscience== | |||
| Based on this discussion on AN/I and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, {{user5|Mccready}} is issued a 30 day community ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is ''encouraged'' to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. ] 22:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Hm, interesting. There was a discussion about community probation last week (i.e. deciding that a user should stay away from certain articles, as opposed to a community ban which decides a user must stay away from the entire 'pedia). Based on the response there, it sounds like a good idea to give this a shot. Based on the heavy mailflow on the Admin Noticeboard, I figured it might be a good idea to log all current probations on a single page (but please keep all related discussion on ''this'' page). I've created a log at ] with some deliberately vague language at the top (feel free to edit) because I'm quite sure we don't need a formal legislative process for this. ] 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good idea. Logged here. --] 23:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, good idea. ] 05:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Jason Gastrich has emailed me asking that his community ban be rescinded. He promises not to use sockpuppets and to serve out the term of his one-year arbcom ban, counted from the date of the last sock activity. Opinions? ] (]) 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : The problem was not in the main the sockpuppetry, although that was a massive problem in itself, the problem was his contempt for policy and consensus, his use of external sites to solicit support, and abnove all his apparnet desire to use Misplaced Pages first and foremost as a vehicle to promote his own agenda. <b>]</b> 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with JzG's no. View the edits made at ] by new users. I strongly ask that his ban not be lifted. There is no compelling evidence his behavior has changed or will change. | |||
| ::During RfAR he didn't even bothering apologizing, admitting sock puppets, or coming to terms with his actions. He denied his actions, had contempt for other users and the rules. ] 22:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Count it from the "last day of sock activity"? So yesterday? {{vandal|Shog5}} made the same edits as a new user a few months ago. He is permantently banned from the Louisiana Baptist University article and it still gets hit. Here's a new user adding Gastrich's webpage to the article. Here's different a new user adding the same Gastrich page. Adding another Gastrich page. | |||
| ::: The links added recently, go back to what he stated in the RfRA: "I disagree with JzG and Arbusto's viewpoint that '''a link to one of my web pages''' or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong." He was here to promote himself and his views no matter what the rules are. ] 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Opinions? Sure, I can do that. Here it is: No. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's the silly season. All the daft banned trolls are crawling back and asking to be given another chance. No. --]04:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Um, no. Not one of our prolific and disruptive biased sockpuppeteers. ] 05:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : This seems pretty close to negotiating with terrorists. He promises if we let him back he won't use sockpuppets? Maybe when the LBU page isn't hit by him for a few months we could consider it possibly. That is not this point (we'd still have the problem that he had few if any productive edits). ] 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Gastrich is the worst sockmaster I've ever dealt with. No. ] ] 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Its also worth noting his presence on , where he plugs his goods. For fun, count how many times he refers to himself as "Dr", and count how many times he mentions that his doctorate is from an unaccredited, mail order "school". ] 21:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Given his complete lack of any contributions whatsoever at meta (http://meta.wikimedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jason_Gastrich) I see no reaosn why he should be allowed to use his page there to spam his websites and books. I'm all for giving people a second chance if I think there's a chance of redemption, but here? I see absolutely no hope that Gastrich will ''ever'' place policy and consensus above his own personal bias. <b>]</b> 22:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Someone want to go find somoene with some authority on Meta to go blank his userpage then? Otherwise I'll ] (yes I know the previous link is not a meta policy). ] 22:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Never mind. I did it already. ] 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Good grief, is there even a question of this? No, no, and again no. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::He's even got a sock puppet there. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/User:Ruth_Ginsling). ] 16:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::If Jason is genuine, then I would welcome him back - but he would have to make a full apology to the community. --] 09:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A full apology means admitting he did something wrong. The few apologies he's ever given have been to apologize for being misunderstood - for you misunderstanding him. You're chances of getting a real apology ... I'd support lifting the ban if he made a full apology, which means I'm not in favor of lifting the ban ever. ] 14:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| I don't know how familiar people here are with him but apparently a large number of people on the Misplaced Pages IRC channel knew him. No disrespect intended, but this article is recreation of previously deleted content. See the ] which apparently he himself initated by saying he didn't feel he was notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. Now I know I could tag it as ] but I feel even tagging it as such may generate some ill will. I'd like to get a consensus about what should be done here first, perhaps circumstances have changed and the community indeed feels he is now notable enough for an article. ] 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The AFD was about 9 months ago, and circumstances have changed so db-repost isn't sutible, another AFD would likely be kept as well. ] ] 02:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(After edit conflict) In that case the article should state what makes him more notable now than when he was at the time of the first AfD. From what I can by the information in the article, his claims to notability have not changed since January, hence the first AfD would stand. ] 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| According to the log and history, the article was restored today to restore the edit history after content was merged; before that it had been redirected to ] since January. The redirect has now been undone, but if content has been merged it can't be simply deleted. The thing to do would be to get consensus to re-redirect the article in the normal way. Incidentally, dying is not a claim to notability. I would have been perfectly willing to delete this per ] G4 if this was just a standard repost (which it isn't). --]<sup>]</sup> 02:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (Just got edit conflicted twice) Well, I think he is a lot more notable now then ever before.... but ] only has a few thousand users, and I haven't a clue if that makes him notable. Personally I think we need to find a reliable biography to use as a source, because as it stands, all we know about is his death. (which earlier incarnations of the article didn't even have). Ok, time for google. ] (] • ]) 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The page has been reverted to a redirect and reverted back to an article twice each now. I still have yet to see any new information towards his notability that would show why he is more notable since the AfD in January. ] 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| We've also become more inclusionist since then. You know we have ], right? Give it up. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 21:12, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We've had thse farm to market roads since long before that AfD (I've checked one, and it survived an AfD in January 2005 with no consensus). So your example is invalid, and the idea that we have become "more inclusionist" is not reflected in policies or guidelines. There are some categories of articles where we have (sadly, IMO) become more inclusionist, to the point of dropping all questions of importance, notability, or even being somheow remarkable or exceptional, and where the only necessities are verifiablilty and NPOV. But for most articles, I don't have the impression that the "rules" have changed or that more articles are kept. If it's not notable, delete it. ] 08:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Circumstances have changed since the original nomination to AFD, if someone contests the notability of this person they should renominate the article and allow it to be discussed there. ] 00:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Desg == | |||
| I am sorry, I am very, very green and I doubt I am doing this correctly, but there it is. | |||
| This user is a spammer: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Desg | |||
| All his contributions are adding his commercial links to Wiki pages. | |||
| In particular, on this page: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Stained_glass | |||
| He has removed a very valuable link about stained glass restoration and replaced it with a link to his newly formed forum. He has added a very plain stained glass window of his in the middle of the world's best examples, with a link to his commercial site. | |||
| On this page: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Lead_came_and_copper_foil_glasswork | |||
| He added a link to a tool he sells and did a similar trick with the external links as he did for the page above. | |||
| == user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation == | |||
| Most importantly, after the pages were restored, he promptly returned to spam the Wiki pages again, and added his spammy links once more. | |||
| {{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. | |||
| I understand there is some sort of warning system but I am not confident enough to do this, I cannot be sure I will do it right. | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| I would appreciate if someone could oversee this matter. Thank you. | |||
| '''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) '' | |||
| :Recommend adding <code>downeaststainedglass.com</code> on the spam blacklist. ] 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version | |||
| :With spammers, you usually warn them incrementally with templates {{tl|spam}}, {{tl|spam2}}, {{tl|spam3}}, {{tl|spam4}} each time they return to their activity. Use their talk page for that. If they persist, you report them at ]. See ] for other warning templates. ] 07:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page." | |||
| :He is also spamming with <code>stainedglassville.com</code> and <code>free-recipe-site.com</code> ] 09:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template). | |||
| This person Roger J has a personal hatred for me and is attempting to destroy my credentials. Please call me by phone to discuss further if you have any questions. My phone # is at the bottom of my website I can produce legal harrassment papers to back my claims. DESG | |||
| * : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}} | |||
| : Whether or not this is the case (it is certainly odd that his only contributions here are related to you), for the most part he is correctly interpreting Misplaced Pages standards. Our ] policy strongly discourages editors from adding links to their own sites and/or to commercial sites. ] 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary. | |||
| :Please note that this user has removed warnings to his talk page with edit. I have restored the warnings and added <nowiki>{{subst:Wr0}}</nowiki> as appropriate, as it appears this user may not understand our policies regarding talk pages but did not appear to remove the warnings in a botched archiving attempt or as part of a formatting error. ] * ] 15:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached" | |||
| ::He's been temporarily blocked for violating 3RR. --] (]) 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * : 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'' | |||
| Presently he seems to be testing the limits of tolerance of Wikipedians regarding linking to his website. The new strategy involves gratuitious mentions of his website accompanied with a link to some page or other of downeaststainedglass.com ], ], ], ]. Given his past behavior I suspect he is curious as to how many times he can insert his link outside of the "External Links" sections before being warned. I also suspect he is venting his frustration about being caught spamming with a NPOV dispute on this page ]. It's a lot of work to protect the Wiki pages from his dogged pursuance of a personal and commercial agenda. Assistance from the community would be much appreciated. ] 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Please see ]. I don't know enough about stained glass to evaluate whether he is an eeeevil spammer or a good-faith contributor with valuable information on the subject. Dispute resolution is the way to bring in people who are experienced with Misplaced Pages (and hopefully even some with stained glass experience) to look over the situation. ''This'' page is not for dispute resolution; please do not try to carry out the argument here. ] 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template. | |||
| == Redirecting sites == | |||
| * Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.". | |||
| * JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}} | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing. | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit. | |||
| --- | |||
| Please redirect ] to ] as applies only to Vancouver area whereas the other one is in a broder sense in being Canadian. | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI. | |||
| * Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation. | |||
| As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| --] 07:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Followed up on user's talk page. ] 07:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::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 ] | |||
| This category has grown overly huge over the years, and frankly it is pretty ugly to visitors of the encyclopedia that might even end up there via ]. In my opinion we should prune it. I have been trying to replace a few with sensible redirects, but for most of this list I can't think of any. What I'd like to do is generate a list of all PDPs that are older than, say, three months, and delete the lot of those (because I don't think most recreators are all that persistent in the first place). What would people think of that? ] 10:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page: | |||
| :Absolutely, this is horrible clutter - and in some cases it's even blocking the creation of legitimate articles. I proposed cleanup procedures a while back at ]. ] 11:01, 17 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) | |||
| :I'd say go for it. Most of the recreators are just bored schoolkids who will have wandered off elsewhere by the end of the day anyway. Deleting 3 month old deleteprotected pages should be no problem (even 1 month old should not be a problem in general), I think most of the "backlog" is simply due to the fact that most admins, myself included, just protect a page and then forget about it. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 11:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities. | |||
| ::I'd also support this as long as a suitable time period is given (such as one to three months, per ] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span>. While I don't want to name names, there is an administrator who is currently arbitrarily undoing these deleted pages with the edit summary "Old deleted-protected page unlikely to be recreated." The problem is that a number of the pages he/she is undoing were protected only days ago. While there is nothing wrong with getting rid of these pages once the risk of vandalism and such has passed, doing so after only a few days is a a waste of everyone's time. --] 11:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| :: I would be opposed to assigning specific time ranges for this. Some unprotection after a couple of days would be fine, for some I've seen 6 months later people still wanting to recreate an article delted as ] based on the same "sources" available when initially deleted. This should be a common sense thing. --] 12:16, 17 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) | |||
| ::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law. | |||
| ::::* To who would this be a threat? | |||
| ::::* Which law? | |||
| ::::* In which country? | |||
| ::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wow, I am glad you asked. | |||
| ::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store. | |||
| ::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down. | |||
| ::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong. | |||
| ::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I found this: ]. Sounds useful. ] 12:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's an interesting page but not very useful since it must be manually updated. Is it possible to create an automatic page along these lines?--] 12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Well cl_timestamp is actually a field on the categorylinks database table, so I would suggest that this is actually being extracted rather than manually produced. That timestamp has its problems since IIRC it gets updated each time the page gets changed rather than when the category was added, however for this purpose that shouldn't be an issue... --] 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's defenently possible, it requires accesss to the database though, and unfortunately the toolserver still doesn't have a working copy of the enwiki database. Guess the best bet is to download a dump of the categorylinks database (the most recent ones is only 6 days old as of now) and run some querries offline. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Luckily, even regular users have limited access to the database; see ] or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php (I know that at least two bots use this method to get cl_timestamp data). --] 09:54, 18 September 2006 (]]]) | |||
| ::Is it not possible, in addition to whatever pruning we might do, to get the developers to come up with a way of not picking them up on random? <b>]</b> 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I about whether ] would find them a month ago. However, now that I think about it, if the developers applied a way to make exceptions to finding these from special:random, there would be a clamor about "excusing this article," "excusing that article," and excusing all articles with deletion, wikify, and NPOV tags, too. In my opinion, when sysops deal with this category, the goal should be to keep it tidy and miniscule, not to dump things in it and hope they're ]. They should just use their common sense about what needs to be protected against recreation indefinitely, what can be removed from this category after a week, and everything in between. If effective pruning is carried out, then there will be very little need to excuse these protected deleted pages, if only due to the tiny amount of them in total. ] 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've gotten a protected deleted page twice recently while clicking random article, so yes this is beginning to be a problem. I would support a way to not be able to get pages in this category if the developers can do that. If not, I think finding redirects would be the best way to get rid of a lot of the pages in that category. Who knows how many are ] related, perhaps everyone should do a scan over the category and make redirects to anything they recognize. ] 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Some of these are protected after having been deleted for legal reasons and whatnot; perhaps we need another template (identical but for the category) for these? — ] | ] 20:02, 17 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) | |||
| Hey, let's just keep them protected and redirect them all to ] or something similar. A template could be used to categorize such redirects for later perusal, in fact it could even be the same template we're using now. —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 21:09, Sep. 17, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd say that rather than making feature requests, our easiest solution is to delete most of those pages. I'd be happy to give it a shot, and if two or three other admins chime in it's not really that much work with a tabbed browser. ] 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room who ]? | |||
| *::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations? | |||
| *::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It would make sense for someone to go through and clear out the old ones, but it is absolutely essential that we maintain a list of these pages somewhere so that we can, in the future, look over it to see which redlinks turned blue and determine if the recreation was valid. How about maintaining the list at ]? --] 02:19, 18 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) | |||
| :Do you mean ] or a new bot generated list? --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 08:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh I see '''deleted''' protected deleted pages, so new list then, nevermind. Yeah, usefull to keep taps on recreations. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 08:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Also, you can watchlist deleted pages, and they'll show up if recreated. And also, you can check in your deletion log whether any page you deleted has been recreated. ] 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*A watchlist doesn't do nearly the same thing because: it only works for one person not everyone; if multiple people are deleting these protected deleted pages then no single person will have the list; and watchlists are generally used for lots of other stuff, and if you aren't editing for over a day or so, you will totally miss it. Thus, it is essential that we create a page somewhere where we list all of these protected deleted pages that are deleted so ''everyone'' can keep an eye on the redlinks that turn blue and make sure that it is valid content. --] 02:42, 19 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=]}}. | |||
| Having a list of deleted deleted-protected pages might be over-kill unless it can be done extremely easily; most are not re-created and when they do they seem to be mostly found, and then that's just another backlog that has to be cleared of dead items. Keep in mind also that many of these topics actually do warrant articles, mostly for ''different'' persons other than the one that was deleted. That's the main reason for getting rid of these deleted pages. There are so few relative to the number of articles that readers getting them on a Random article is not a significant problem, but when you have major political figures, etc. blocked because some bozo with a similar name created a vanity page in a space of 2 minutes 6 months ago, that is a problem. | |||
| :* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]: | |||
| {{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}} | |||
| The list we currently have at ] will last at least for the deletedpages until 8-10-2006. Whereas bots are necessary to do things on a daily basis, this list doesn't absolutely ''need'' to be created more than once a month really. It would be nice though to have it automatically created. | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}} | |||
| :* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Another way to help out with deletedpages is through ]. Recently protected deletedpages show up there (mostly at 15 bytes). If the page was created in the space of an hour 4 days ago, delete. If it looks like it's a little more chronic problem, append a little comment that pushes it off the list, like <nowiki><!--Excess long comment to prevent listing on ]............................................................--></nowiki>. This ''is'' an automatically generated list and is cutting down the backlog from the other end, as well as doing it from the Kotepho list. —]→] • 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* 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) | |||
| :The rule of thumb I've been using whether to keep them protected is whether the amount of time between the first deletion and the last deletion is longer than the amount of time between the last deletion and now, with leeway if someone has talked about creating a legitimate article on the talk page. As you can see from the list, most don't stay protected. —]→] • 03:29, 19 September 2006 (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. | |||
| == Huh? == | |||
| :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 == | |||
| ] ] 15:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Oct13}} | |||
| :Same as ] A null edit did the trick. ] 15:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed. Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned identified in the case, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits. | |||
| :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) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee. ] 17:31, 17 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) | |||
| == Lollywood Block review == | |||
| ::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— ] ] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I have blocked {{User5|Lollywood}} indefinitely as he has continued to insert copyrighted text into various articles despite warnings. This includes ] , ] , ] , ] etc. | |||
| ::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.— ] ] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction == | |||
| I should note that the same user has in the past edited from the ip block 82.159.*.* as evidenced by exactly same copypasting in these articles (, etc.) and was warned/blocked several times in the last 2 months. --] 18:08, 17 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. | |||
| 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> | |||
| Added: Further evidence of vandalism/disruptions include , , , and so on. --] 18:11, 17 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) | |||
| I support Ragib's actions.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 19:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (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 == | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Kehrli is banned for one year from articles which relate to m/z. Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation. Should Kehrli violate any ban placed on him by this decision or engage in substitution of notation, he may be blocked for an appropriate time. All blocks are to be logged at ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee. ] 18:21, 17 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) | |||
| == Remove loong talk diatribes per SOAP? == | |||
| == Call for mentors == | |||
| Is it ok to revert long diatribes on talk pages per ]? ] has been protected due to large additions of POV text, and now its moved to the talk page, with no real attempt to construct proper content for inclusion. Can the most recent cut/paste be removed? . --] (]) 19:13, 17 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) | |||
| :If it's not copyvio I would say the best idea is to ]. —] 19:18, 17 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.) ] ] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Didn't think of the copyvio issue. As it stands, the diff above is a large cut/paste from the newspaper article (but it cited as such). --] (]) 19:31, 17 September 2006 (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 ]== | |||
| ==Some input to ]== | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| I'm going to ] and not revert, but (actually a series of small edits) added lots of red links to the ] page. Can anybody determine if these people are notable writers? ]|] 19:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well the first three are legitimate authors, and IMO they meet the notability criteria. However, the article is a ''List of African-American writers'', and there doesn't seem to be a notability threshold for inclusion. I didn't read up enough to figure out if they are actually African-American, which is an issue and should be verified. But what's the existing standard of verifiability on the article? Have all the 'blue-linked' authors been verified as A-A? If the issue is the red-links, IMO the discussion should wait until actual ''articles'' are written about them, whereupon it can be decided whether or not they are notable enough to warrant them. ] 21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict) From what I can tell they appear to be notable writers, although I haven't checked every one. Should serve as a good guideline for creating some new articles in an area Misplaced Pages is short on. —] 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal == | |||
| ::Great, thanks for the input from both of you. ]|] 21:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]: | |||
| == Request for Unblock == | |||
| (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) | |||
| ] has requested to be unblocked after being indefinitely blocked in July 2006. I wanted to post here to try to gain some community consensus as to whether or not Misplaced Pages would benefit from giving this user another chance. ]] 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Looking at a random selection, all this user's "contributions" to Misplaced Pages seem to have been torrential outpourings of utter nonsense - looks to be typical. No unblocking, please. --] (]) 21:14, 17 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) | |||
| ::The unblock request was recently reviewed and denied by ]. ]] 21:17, 17 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :::I didn't use the "unblock reviewed" template so the user was still listed at ] and Centrx must have been working there and missed my comment on the user's talk page mentioning this thread and made the decision to deny the request. ]] 22:03, 17 September 2006 (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) | |||
| ::I just erupted in laughter after reading that. Yeah, the indefinite block is completely warranted. I wonder if this overdescribing of everything couldn't be caused by some mental disorder, though. -- ] (]) 22:58, 17 September 2006 (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 also went through this user's contributions, and I think ajn's assessment is spot-on. In fact, I'm not sure I could find a single diff which ''cannot'' be characterized as a "torrential outpouring of utter nonsense". For example, . Perhaps I've missed some, but can anyone point me to good edits by this user? --- ] (]) 22:25, 17 September 2006 (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) | |||
| ::Not rely, I remember running into him a while back when he made a royal mess of the ] page with one of his philosophical rants and a page move. I've never seen anyone capable of writing so much nonsense and still somehow stay on topic on some level, almost a ] quality to his "work". A usefull contributer his is not thogh, he would write lengthy rants on his talk page defending his works when people called him on his vandalism. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 22:49, 17 September 2006 (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) | |||
| :He was indefinitely blocked for making death threats, and didn't consider that he might need to apologise for them before an unblock request would be taken seriously, instead trying to claim that ''"There is only one way to deal with bullies - a gun. If you are collecting my articles, you must to be shot to save humanity, per your own definition - a Darwin Award"'' is a ''"figure of speech"''. Should we unblock? Hell no. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:46, 17 September 2006 (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 == | |||
| == Proposed ban of JarlaxleArtemis == | |||
| 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) | |||
| According to the terms of an Arbitration on {{userlinks|JarlaxleArtemis}}, he can be banned for a year with the agreement of any three administrators. I suggest that we should do this, following his . He's also been guilty of copyright violations, flagrantly violating the MOS, removing deletion tags, POV/vandalism edits, posting the source code for a vandalbot, etc. (as seen on his ]). We can save the ArbCom a bit of time by dealing with this ourselves. They don't need to re-examine this case; they've already looked at him ''twice'' before, and what came out of it was that we can ban him for a year as necessary. I propose that it is now necessary. --] 23:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted contributions request == | |||
| :I am JarlaxleArtemis. I think that Cyde is the one who is trolling and should be banned. Of course, no one will believe me, but I just want to at least ''try'' to counter this admin's lies. His lies regarding me are My message telling him to stop are and . He then blocked me for trolling, even though he is the one who is trolling. Another lie about me is that he is saying I was trying to make a vandal bot. What will I gain with that? I pasted the script for Checkuser (yes, ''Checkuser'', '''not''' a vandal bot) on a freaking '''Sandbox''' page of mine. Great vandal bot that is, isn't it?--] 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :According to , the second arbitration case was closed early because he was "permanently banned" for ]. After he was unblocked probationarily in November 2005, he has been blocked 8 times since for various disruptive behavior. In total, he has previously been blocked by 9 different administrators a total of 20 times. Based on looking at the comments in the block log and the arbitration case, it is clear that this user is repeatedly disruptive and is not amenable through promises, probations, or mentoring. —]→] • 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] == | |||
| :Look, the source codes are readily available at ], which is linked to from ]. I am mistaken; the source code was for renaming users, not Checkuser. As if I could benefit from that. I need to be a bureaucrat or something like that to rename users, which I don't even want to. Please ban Cyde. ] 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The comments in the block log are deceptive. The admins repeatedly make overstatements and/or flat out lie there.--] 23:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person == | |||
| ::Admin number three here. Get it over with. --] - '']'' - ] 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course you listen to Cyde. You ''are'' a fucking cabal. Goodbye, then corrupt admins!--] 23:56, 17 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> | |||
| ::Did the three-admin-ban thing actually pass? The case was closed, but it's not clear whether the proposed decision was ever put into place. (Not that I have any objection to banning him, mind you, just curious.) ] 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking. | |||
| :::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – ] (]) (]) 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. == | |||
| :::Who cares? He is disruptive, always has been, just block him. --] - '']'' - ] 00:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::I'm not sure. He ended up being banned outright, but for some unknown reason, he was unbanned and then continued to get into all sorts of trouble in the following months. I'm reinstating the indefinite community ban. --] 00:14, 18 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) | |||
| ::::Linuxbeak thought he could be reformed, if I recall correctly. In any case, a community ban sounds fine. ] 00:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Is there even a single test case of this working? "Reforming" just doesn't seem workable to me. This is just an Internet site; if someone is an asshole, they're going to keep being an asshole, and no mere Internet site is going to get them to reform. Seeing a psychiatrist regularly, maybe. But not this. --] 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It has been known (there is also the issue that we have been around long enough for certain people to just grow up).] 01:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I concur with ]. According to information he posted on Misplaced Pages, ] started contributing to Misplaced Pages last year when he was in the tenth grade. Some young people lack the maturity, discipline, and people skills to contribute to a serious collaborative project like Misplaced Pages, but they may gain these skills as they grow older. —] 01:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Now that you've blocked him, prepare yourselves for a flood of vandalism. He did this the couple last times he was banned or blocked for a long period. Favourite tactics include mailbombing and mass creation of user accounts. —] 00:26, 18 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) | |||
| He's just violated ] on ] by tampering with his block template (changing it from "reviewed" to unreviewed). If his ban doesn't prevent him from editing his own page, then perhaps it should be protected. —] 00:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Now an IP {{IPlinks|2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B}} has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. ] (]) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Hide this racist edit. == | |||
| :Done. ] 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people. | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Copied from ] == | |||
| :That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The following was a few minutes ago at the Vandalism talk page by an unregistered user: | |||
| :Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Admin prohibits to delete copyright links == | |||
| :Someone in Deffective By Design suggested a "wikipedia-bombing" on October 3rd, to change all occurrences from "Digital rights Management" to "Digital RESTRICTIONS Management". Although I am completely against DRM, and think that DbD has some interesting ideas, this one in particular would cause more harm than good. I think the DRM article should be watched to avoid edit wars and vandalism. | |||
| {{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): | |||
| :here is the to the Deffective By Design site. | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| 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) | |||
| :00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC) An Anonymous reader | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == 96.230.143.43 == | |||
| It may not be anything, but then again, it may be something. -]<sup>(])</sup> 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :I'm adding the page to my watchlist. The somewhat... erm... intellectually challenged person who made that suggestion apparently never bothered to consider that a) what he writes is visible to ''everyone'' and b) administrators' actions ''can'' be reversed, very quickly, and often are. Truly one of the lamer "OMG LET'S VANDALIZE T3H W1K1P3D14!!!11!!!oneoneone" suggestions. ] * ] 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Defective by Design has now taken down the page that that links to. I wonder if their admins decided it was inappropriate, or if they're trying to hide something? ]|] 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm pretty sure it's because I sent them a message pointing out how much it discredited their project and how futile an exercise it would be, especially since their suggestion that any DfD members with admin rights protect the page after vandalizing it would lead only to an immediate revert of the protection and an emergency desysopping with a speed not seen since the Everyking scandal. Aside from a few odd DfD members who saw the notice, I don't think we'll see anything now. ] * ] 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == |
== StoneX Group Inc. == | ||
| I’m concerned about the page at ] | |||
| I have indefinitely banned Karwynn following recent CheckUser revelations that he was using a slew of sockpuppet accounts for some rather malicious vandalism. The sockpuppet accounts blocked include {{userlinks|ShintoSabe}}, {{userlinks|Rostafar}}, {{userlinks|Mai Ling}}, {{userlinks|GomeonaFinnigan}}, and {{userlinks|Juan Gonzales}}. It has become rather obvious that Karwynn is nothing but an ED troll trying to raise a ruckus on Misplaced Pages, and his long good-bye statement from last week where he gave us all the finger and told us to "sit and spin, bitches" is going to be his ''last'' statement. --] 02:17, 18 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) | |||
| : I was unfortunately very wrong about this user. Endorse block. ] 02:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Finally, an end to a monumentally huge waste of time. Thanks, Cyde.--] 05:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Endorse, we really shouldn't take sooo long to rid ourselves of patent trolls. As MONGO says, this stuff really does waste the time and patience of good users. --] 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Endorse block. ] ] 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Block endorsed. Glad it was blocked and the sock farm detected. --] 22:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Permissions Removal == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| {{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur Ellis is banned indefinitely from ] and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of ]. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account. | |||
| 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) | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee. ] 03:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. Thank you. — ] ] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == One to watch == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ftools is back! == | |||
| {{user|Chelsea Tory}} is causing a ruckus at {{article|Gregory Lauder-Frost}}. He attributes motives to all editors including ], who is just about the most civil person I've come across on the project. Trolling, tendentious edits, assertions of illegality. If one or two uninvolved admins could keep an eye I'd be grateful. <b>]</b> 10:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Is it possible this could be legal-threat-extraordinaire {{userlinks|Sussexman}} again? --]<sup>]</sup> 15:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Possibly, but I doubt it. They are undoubtedly connected in some way, though. -- ] 23:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Trouble with User Jim62sch == | |||
| :{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Admins, | |||
| :Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| over the last few days I have run into trouble with ] on the ] article. Our actual disagreement is about whether to include certain comments or not: ]. I opposed this as I think the comments uninformative and bloating the section, while he readded them time and again. But the real problem with him is that he does not ] when I state my reasons for removing them, instead accuses me of trying to "censor" or "whitewash", and is extremely ] in trying to use my religious persuasion, which I did indicate on my user page to ban me from editing in this issue. He has made similar remarks towards ], when she commented on the issue. Now, I want to be clear that I am not aiming at Jim being blocked or anything like this. I am sure he is a valuable contributor. However, could some admin please admonish him to desist from his uncivil and unwikipedian behaviour. Cheers, ] ] 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a content dispute. Please take it to ]. Jim is acting in his capacity as editor, not admin here. Please note that revert-warring is not endorsed as a way of resolving content disputes. While the relevance of individual criticisms may be debatable, there is no doubt that at this moment the controversy in question is headline news around the world and we need to give a flavour of that. The content in question is cited and stated accurately, so it's a judgment call, and that is not something we can fix by admin intervention, I'm afraid. <b>]</b> 14:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::My query is not about a content dispute, but about Jim's behaviour of trying to exclude editors from certain topics based on their respective religions, and of constant insulting and bad faith comments. I have not asked you for your opinion in the content dispute, as you have voiced that on that talk page. ] ] 16:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Still a content dispute. I know Jim, he is a fair-minded guy. Have you tried talking nicely ot him? I often find that works a treat. <b>]</b> 17:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It is NOT a content dispute. If you don't want to help, then don't. Jim might otherwise be a nice guy, but he has attacked and assumed bad faith at me since our first disagreement on this issue. ] ] 17:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How silly of me to suggest that a dispute over the inclusion of content is a content dispute. I'll know better next time, I guess. <b>]</b> 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Content dispute. This isn't the place for it. Work it out on the talk. ] 00:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I will stop this here, since apperently no one here cares about AGF and civility any more. How silly of me to think problematic behaviour is a behaviour problem. (And to repeat it one more time: I did not come here to get the content dispute solved, so please don't comment on it.) ] ] 07:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Don't go overboard, please. It's a content dispute, there is no administrative intervention required. Honestly. There's no need to try and make a Federal case of it. <b>]</b> 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Block appeal for ] == | |||
| ==Possible sock?== | |||
| {{atop | |||
| {{vandal|Tyresias}} | |||
| | status = unblock denied | |||
| Anyone want to weigh in on whether this user is a sock, and/or if a RFCU is indicated? ]<sup>]</sup> 14:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Editing a policy page as your first edit may indicate that you've been banned and are pursuing an agenda, or it may indicate that you've been editing as an anon, have gotten interested in policy articles, want to make a change and have realised, correctly, that you're not likely to be taken seriously editing a cornerstone policy page unless you create an account. If you're willing to name a sockpuppeteer, please go ahead and then we can compare the two accounts' contributions and request a Checkuser if necessary, but I don't see any proof of sockpuppetry based on this account's contributions alone. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::At the risk of sounding curt, I already knew that, as do most readers of this page. My hope was that ''if'' the user is a sock, someone would recognise the pattern and speak up. I have one sneaking suspician but would prefer others take a look and see if they see a similarity with any of the NOR edit warriors. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Never mind - someone else noticed, and he is indeed who I suspected and is now blocked. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And I agree as well. Seems this one is haviong a bit of trouble leaving, despite his repeated assertions to the contrary. <b>]</b> 17:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps we can get JA and JG together - the one knows Truth because he wrote the book (novel) on it, and the other knows Truth because he got it directly from God - and they're both banned sockpuppeting trolls. They have so much in common! ]<sup>]</sup> 18:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| | result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism in article: Lebanon== | |||
| }} | |||
| The entire contents of the article Lebanon have been deleted and replaced with the content of the article Canada. The IP address responsible is 139.142.154.129. Please revert the page move/deletion and block vandal. ] 16:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. {{u|Aman.kumar.goel}} has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see ]). As you can see in the unblock request at ], they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, {{u|Ivanvector}}, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from ] and ] were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows: | |||
| == Requests for mediation has ground to a halt == | |||
| :I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals. | |||
| ] seems to have ground to a halt. There are 30 cases listed pending decisions to accept or reject, about 10 accepted cases that have not been assigned, and no substantive edits to the page in almost 2 months. Essjay, current chair of Medcom, hasn't edited anything in a month. I don't personally have anything pending but I noticed this through comments on Essjay's talk page, which I have watchlisted. Are there some former mediators who can take over temporarily and get things moving along again? It seems like a big part of the dispute resolution process is not functioning at the moment. ] 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not part of Medcom, but I've watched how they worked in the past, and I'm kind of wandering aimlessly looking for a Wikipurpose at the moment. If X number of admins are willing to sign off on it, I'd be happy to step in on an interim basis to do the clerical work and try to stir up the active Medcom members to elect someone else. --] 01:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, Medcom is kind of a closed club, with a closed mailing list and special procedures for accepting new members. I'm kind of hoping one of the mediators emeriti listed on the page will jump in as acting chair and get things going. If on the other hand there is no action in a few days and you fell like being bold, the worst thing that can happen is you'll stir someone else to action. ] 01:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wonder if I might stir someone else to toss me into arbitration. Heh, could be interesting, couldn't it? I'll watch the page; if nothing at all happens after a few days, I'll come back and seek some sort of semiofficial sanction for my coup attempt. Hopefully they'll take care of it on their own, but it's already been an awfully long time for all those Medcom members to just sit on their hands, waiting for a sign from somewhere else. If nothing else, it's a sign that a couple of new rules should be enacted about the workflow, IMHO. --] 02:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Is Essjay gone? He has not edited anything in a month.... -- ] <sup>]</sup> 03:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Essjay has not edited meta since August 7th, I think. <font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><font color="green">]</font><font color="darkyellow">]</font><font color="orange">]</font><font color="purple">]</font> <font color="oceanblue">]</font><font color="aqua">]</font> 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::He mentioned some real life issues, including the start of the school year and having more responsibilities. My gut tells me its more than that, though. ] 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active. | |||
| == IP request == | |||
| :My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "{{tq|The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.}}". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked. | |||
| First, sorry if this is in the wrong place. I really can't figure out where it should go. | |||
| :Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I was wondering if I could request the user IP 150.101.113.199 be unblocked for people who sign in. | |||
| ] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is a school computer, so I can't really control what people use it to edit (especially since it's a k to 12 school), but it's dissapointing that I can't edit some articles. | |||
| *'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Anyway, that's all. Thank you. | |||
| :* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Reblocked 1 month with anonymous only and account creation enabled. ] 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*:You need to re-check. , AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::* I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean ''now'' but I did not from the original posting. ] 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is {{tq|we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing}}, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates {{tq|someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them}}. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. ] (]) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], ] from AKG copied over:{{tq2|Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "{{tq|However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.}}" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for ]), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. ] ] 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. ] ] 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention ] would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it ]ing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with {{u|Ivanvector}}'s assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the ] that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual ''also'' had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. ] (]) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that ] applies here. ] (]) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I warned AKG ] for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.] (]) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To quote what I had said then, "{{blue|I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing.}}" I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there ''were'' multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add ] on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and ] on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. ] 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. ] (]) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::: Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. ] 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. ] (]) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from ]. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. ] 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes. | |||
| *:I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than ''not'' agreeing to it. -- ] (]) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Yes, this is also my concern. I would have ''thought'' that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well ''outside'' that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. ] 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. ] (]) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. ] 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ] (]) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. ] 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. ] (]) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. are are recent examples from this noticeboard. ] (]) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as ''punishment'', but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. ] (]) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. ] (]) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per {{u|Ivanvector}}: i.e. dependent on {{blue|a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction}}. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. ]'']''] 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I find myself agreeing with {{U|Black Kite}} - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. ] (]) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. ] (]) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. ] (]) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. ] (]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). ] (]) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:<s>I would tentatively '''support''' with the TBAN they have now agreed to.</s> I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. ] (]) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support <small>(NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case)</small>. Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. ] (]) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage: | |||
| {{Talkquote|After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from ], I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping {{u|Yamla}}, {{u|The Kip}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Caeciliusinhorto-public}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|Vanamonde93}}. Thanks ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| - ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Would they also consent to the ] topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : We should probably block account creation from this address as well, but allow pre-registered accounts, otherwise there isn't much point in blocking the IP; it just makes our job more difficult to track abuse. In my opinion, the system administator should be contacted before blocks are released on educational networks which are proven as constant sources of vandlaism. ] 10:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of ] and ], but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. ]] 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. ''']''' (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Very, very '''weak support''' on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support, but''' only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — ] ] 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under ]. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. ]] 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - At the end of the day, the ] has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. ] (]) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --] (]) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. ] (]) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. ] ] 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Import request == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Zer0faults is placed on Probation. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from an article or set of articles which he disrupts by tendentious editing or edit warring. All bans to be logged at ]. For the Arbitration Committee. ] 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| == Anyone watching WP:PAIN tonight? == | |||
| :I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| == Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 == | |||
| There is a clear npa violation, with requisite diffs, warnings, etc. at ] right now (Éponyme) that has been open for nearly four hours now without any administrator attention thus far. Anyone want to take a look at it? · <font color="#013220">]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). ]] 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh yeah--totally one-sided. Make them choose sides, especially the easiest side being that which has many numbers of apathetic lynchmobbers. Nobody has empathic Devil's Advocacy! ] 03:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. ] (]) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that: | |||
| == User:John Spikowski == | |||
| {{ivmbox|1= | |||
| Myself a other editors of the ], ], and ] articles are having quite a bit of trouble with user ]. If you go through the history of those pages, the user pages, the user talk pages, and other related pages, you will find repetitive acts of vandalism in the form of spam, attention-seeking, user-page vandalism, talk-page vandalism, changing people's comments, and the list just goes on and on. It's not hard to spot once you check out some of the pages. This user has also made personal attacks to ]. It's pretty out of control and I ask the admins for advice on the subject. Never asked for anyone to be blocked before, but I think this case is extreme enough to ask for this request. We could really use some help right now. Thoughts? ] 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The ] are amended by adding the following section: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ; Coordinating arbitrators | |||
| The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators. | |||
| Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work. | |||
| Quick note. I feel like myself and other contributing editors have made an effort in trying to understand the reasons for ] editing and have attempted to communicate intention rationally. The user simply resorts to defamation of others are removing comments all together. Please advise. ] 06:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include: | |||
| == WP:PAIN == | |||
| * Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters; | |||
| Anyone for the idea that it should be redirected here? I seem to be one of just a couple of admins that even look at it. I removed alerts tonight that hadn't been acted on in over a *week*. What's the point? --]<sup>]</sup> 09:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators; | |||
| * Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters; | |||
| * Organizing related correspondence into case files; and | |||
| * Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions. | |||
| A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator. | |||
| == New idea == | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| }} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I've written up an idea that's been floating around in my head for a few days and finally gelled this morning: ]. Comments and flames welcomed. Best, ] ] 12:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| : Me likes. -- <small> ]</small> 14:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''For a length of time to be determined, an administrator will be asked to stop using the tools.'' Who will be doing the asking? Unless the admin in question has done something particularly egregious, which should go through the arbcom anyway, I can see having contentious arguments between groups of admins and users as to whether or not what was done even warrants nullification (for example, policy wonks vs IAR wonks). Overall, though, I think it's a good idea. --] 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You might want to read through ], which has some similar ideas. <font color="AE1C28">]</font>♫<font color="#21468B">]</font> 16:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, if we're making proposals, I have had one, too. I'm not sure that it's a thing for the general site to argue over as much as it is a proposal for a reconsideration of how ArbCom thinks about what it does. It's here for those who care. ] 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:00, 11 January 2025
Notices of interest to administrators
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
| 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 14 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 31 | 15 | 46 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 30 sockpuppet investigations
- 22 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 2 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 86 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 18 requested closures
- 44 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 11 Copyright problems
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:
I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.
However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:
That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.
- Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like
On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.
, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
I will never use multiple accounts anymore
and that he wants tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
- But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft
I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?
Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace
...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)- I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?
Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)- Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to archive all threads in Talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. Yaris678 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
43.249.196.179 (again)
See their previous thread here, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
- I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243
@Dreameditsbrooklyn and to a lesser extent @Aviationwikiflight have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as these diffs at me, this diff at AWF, and this diff at User:Awdqmb. Is this actionable? guninvalid (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety
I am stating a fact.
and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".
You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
this
you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
- Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
- But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:MOS says:
If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
- WP:AT, which follows MOS says:
Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
- The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?
Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:MOS says:
An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability
No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' asAccident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible
. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place.
... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries
– The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article statedAirliner crash
, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place.
Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ZLEA T\ 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. guninvalid (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material
This appears to be done. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After reverting multiple edits that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @FMSky posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: "Put your trash analyses in the appropriate section(s) and stop flooding the lead with citations.". 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, why haven't you done that? --FMSky (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article in question is a contentious topic x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?
How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see this edit from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user FederalElection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll add that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, wp:undue concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as 62.74.35.238 now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. WaggersTALK 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Topic ban appeal
Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. DesertInfo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
- I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
- I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
- This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd say
"racial issues broadly construed"
is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart
Looks like this is done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! GD234 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like Camden Stewart or Camden Music. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" GD234 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GD234: I have moved the article to draftspace at Draft:Camdenmusique. If you have a conflict of interest with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are interested in ensuring that the article is indexed on Google and you uploaded his professional headshot), you must declare it following these instructions. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at articles for creation. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback! GD234 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Andra Febrian report
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many edit wars. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's Editing policy) on many pages that good-intended edits have occurred on
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset.
I request that the user is warned.
HiLux duck — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking into this
Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Mr.Choppers warning request
- This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the WP:Civility rules because:
- calling me a "nuisance" because of own bias supporting others in edit wars that have nothing to do with the user. (WP:Civility) (WP:Civility (second violation this user has performed))
- responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war
- note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that
- also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims.
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, HiLux duck (talk) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
- Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Cannot draftify page
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried to draftify Wuliangbao_Pagoda but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Remove PCR flag
Flag run down. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion."The Testifier" report
Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § "The Testifier" report – voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Problem with creating user talk page
CU blocked as sock by Spicy. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user BFDIisNOTnotable (talk · contribs) to warn them against edit warring with {{subst:uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This particular account was definitely created on this wiki. Graham87 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation
I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per WP:NLT. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with this addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
repost from archive:
The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.
Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Misplaced Pages:Edit war is mandatory
but Uwappa has done neither.
I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.
Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 )
- 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
- 13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
- 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
- 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.
- 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
- 14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
- 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
- 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
- 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
- (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
- 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
- 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa
- 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
- 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
- 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
- 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
- 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
---
- 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
- 14:17, 29 December 2024 Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Reposted above from archive, see User_talk:Uwappa#c-JMF-20250105190300-Uwappa-20250105161700
JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
- I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
- Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.
user:Liz What would you like me to do now? Uwappa (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- To who would this be a threat?
- Which law?
- In which country?
- Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
- It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
- The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
- Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could well be taken as a legal threat), and then immediately go back and revert the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
- Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
- Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read my reasons for being late to this party?
- Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
- Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
- Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
- Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it was. Meanwhile, you're still edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) - Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a chilling effect. When called on it you have continually Wikilawyered instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the sixth time.16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (Their edit note adds 3rd time in 24 hours: are they boasting of a 3RR vio? Zefr undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
.An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
— WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule - Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.
-
- From WP:EW;
Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring
. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:EW;
- To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
- In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was explictly a legal threat. Suggest revoking TPA. @Black Kite: - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
An inappropriate template being added to many pages
- 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)
- What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lemonaka: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent IDHT behavior of this user continues on.
- I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
- Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
- Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
- And that's still all they want. They don't want to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, here is the ANI discussion that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --bonadea contributions talk 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.RFU backlog doin' great
I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.
That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to everyone who helped make this suck a little less. Beeblebrox 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Call for mentors
There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Growth Team features/Mentor list about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are assigned a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to all new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- asilvering (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. Nobody (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
- I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). JayCubby 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Kansascitt1225 ban appeal
I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:
(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
References
- https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- (mildly involved) Support. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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). JJPMaster (she/they) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: The import and merge are Done. Please delete the page now. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: I've deleted the page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: The import and merge are
- @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs didn't exist in their current form until 23 December 2004. This page was deleted about a month before that. —Cryptic 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.WP:NOTHERE behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from User: Astronomical17
Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. Liz 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Astronomical17's talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with Devstacks which is currently at WP:AfD and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my WP:NOTHERE allegation comes from this diff at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? guninvalid (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. User:Cyanxbl) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! Buffs (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person
The pages are Chaudhry Sher Ali Khan and Chaudhary Sher Ali. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? 71.202.215.54 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are they the same person? The date of birth (for Chaudhary Sher Ali) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: diff) it's different...
Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted),it's quite possibly a waste of time. - That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32, this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. Liz 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a WP:TNT kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
- I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a proposed merge, instead of here? WaggersTALK 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.
Sinai and Palestine campaign semi-protected until the 23rd. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by OnuJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 57th Infantry Regiment (Ottoman Empire) and Sinai and Palestine campaign, removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to their usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (
changing Palestine to Israel
) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 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)
- @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 think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (
- 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)
- Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Hide this racist edit.
| WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people. https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 200.80.186.184 (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
|
Admin prohibits to delete copyright links
This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the following topic: MU Online Admin Egilus refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. Nebraska Ivan (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.96.230.143.43
Blocked, and WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is a frequent vandal on the page Devils Tower. I am requesting a block. Drdr150 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback/dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
StoneX Group Inc.
I’m concerned about the page at StoneX Group Inc.
There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Permissions Removal
Rights...left? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! Ternera (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
ftools is back!
I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel
UNBLOCK DENIED AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
- I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
- While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
- My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "
The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.
". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
- Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to re-check. Here, AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see WP:AGF. Nxcrypto Message 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean now but I did not from the original posting. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is
we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing
, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicatessomeone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them
. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "
However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.
" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for WP:AN), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention WP:SHARE would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it WP:SOCKing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with Ivanvector's assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the assertion that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual also had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:
- Support with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that Misplaced Pages:One last chance applies here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I warned AKG in October 2021 for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from arbitration enforcement. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
- I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than not agreeing to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. Azuredivay (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. Lorstaking (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as punishment, but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Ivanvector: i.e. dependent on a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. SerialNumber54129 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I find myself agreeing with Black Kite - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. The Kip 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. Nxcrypto Message 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I would tentatively support with the TBAN they have now agreed to.I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support (NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case). Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:
After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping Yamla, The Kip, Black Kite, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Simonm223 and Vanamonde93. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ratnahastin (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would they also consent to the WP:ARBPIA topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE, but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. Girth Summit (blether) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Very, very weak support on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. Andre🚐 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under WP:ARBIPA. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. Miniapolis 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - At the end of the day, the standard offer has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. Dympies (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --JBL (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. Shankargb (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. Star Mississippi 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Import request
Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, they did create the page. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24
Special:Contributions/109.172.86.0/24 this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). jolielover♥talk 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:
- Coordinating arbitrators
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.
Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
- Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
- Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
- Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
- Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
- Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.
A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators