Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 18:59, 1 April 2019 editLevivich (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,455 edits →Two suggestions for the future: +← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:12, 8 January 2025 edit undoBuffs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,462 edits →WP:NOTHERE behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from User: Astronomical17: support a block if such actions continue, but only to get his attention
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	{{short description|Page for requests and notifications to non-specific administrators}}
			|algo = old(7d)
	<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}{{Active editnotice}}</noinclude>
			|counter = 368
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
	| algo = old(6d)		|maxarchivesize = 700K
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	| counter = 307
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	| archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
	| maxarchivesize = 700K		|minthreadsleft = 0
	| archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
	| minthreadstoarchive = 1
	| minthreadsleft = 3
	}}
	<!--
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis		{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
Line 22:		Line 18:
	|maxarchsize= 700000		|maxarchsize= 700000
	}}		}}
	-->		--><!--
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!--
	----------------------------------------------------------		----------------------------------------------------------
	New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.		New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
	----------------------------------------------------------		----------------------------------------------------------
	--><noinclude>{{TOC limit|3}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}
			--><noinclude>
	== Pages recently put under ] ==
	{{collapse top|Report|expand=true}}
	{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}}
	{{collapse bottom}}
	==Thousands of Portals==		==Open tasks==
			<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
			{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
			{{Clear}}
			{{Admin tasks}}
			__TOC__
			</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	The purpose of this posting is to discuss ], hundreds of portals. There is already discussion at ] (see ]) to stop the creation of large numbers of portals by ], and the consensus is going strongly in favor of a hiatus, and there have been no new portals created since 22 February, but there has been no agreement to stop the creation of portals. The discussion at VPR appears to have slowed down, with a very clear consensus for some sort of hiatus, although it is not clear whether everyone agrees that the consensus is to stop the semi-automated creation of portals, or to stop the semi-automated creation of portals by TTH, or to stop all creation of portals by TTH (since there seems to be disagreement on what is semi-automated creation). Some editors have suggested that these portals are the equivalent of redirects by Neelix that warrant mass destruction. Anyway, proposals at VPR are just that, proposals. I am bringing the discussion here.
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	Perhaps I don’t understand, but ] appears to be saying that we need to use portals as an experiment in navigation and in innovation. I am not sure that I understand whether, by experiment, they mean testing, a new initiative, or what, but I am not sure that I understand what is being innovated, or why it requires hundreds or thousands of portals.
			{{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.
	] (]) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
			Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
	: Note that the mass hiatus wasn't on me per se, but applicable in general. It applies to everyone. It's so that nobody mass creates portals for the time being. That includes me. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 05:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	====An Example and Some Comments====
			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 ].}}
	]
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==
	One of the portals that has been proposed by ] for deletion is ]. A look at it, with its error messages, is sadly informative. It was one of Misplaced Pages's earliest portals, preceding the involvement of the current portal team of TTH and a few other editors. However, the current portal team has made breaking changes to ], apparently in order to attempt to improve the maintenance of portals. They apparently don't know how to keep our existing portals working, so what business do they have creating thousands of additional portals? We are told that the new portals are maintenance-free or nearly maintenance-free, but have the new portals been created at the cost of breaking existing portals? ] (]) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
			I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
	Also, TTH says, above, that there is a hiatus that applies to everyone so that nobody mass creates portals for the time being. What is meant by mass creation, as opposed to individual creation? Are they agreeing not to create any portals for the time being? How long a time? Will they defer the creation of any new portals until (and unless) there is a consensus arrived at the criteria for the creation and maintenance of new portals? ] (]) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (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.
	Also, if any editor wishes to propose mass deletion of portals, similar to Neely redirects, that can be Proposal 3 (or 4). ] (]) 03:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
			The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
	:Further investigation found 2 of the 8 portals linked off the top of the Mainpage had similar Red Script Errors where content should be. ] has now reverted these to pre-automation status. A lot of effort goes into keeping content linked from the Mainpage error free, yet this little Portal Project group replaced featured article quality portals with automated junk. ] (]) 03:46, 2 March 2019 (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.
	:See ]. "Something broke but could be fixed" isn't a deletion rationale. Much less a deletion rationale for {{em|different}} pages; that's the ] fallacy. Note also the {{lang|la|]}} fallacy in there too, making it about specific people and getting back at them and suggesting they're too incompetent to create a new page, etc., instead of the argument focusing on content and our systems of presenting and navigating it. Tsk tsk. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:11, 14 March 2019 (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?
	{{clear}}
	===Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals ===
	{{atop|There is a rough consensus to formalize a moratorium on creation of new portals, as proposed. There is some prominent opposition rooted in the notion that it is not necessary to formally sanction an editor who has already self-imposed the sanction, and this is a reasonable point. Other than that, however, there is little sentiment that the behavior is not problematic and worthy of preventative measures, voluntary or otherwise. So, the worst case scenario presented by the opposition is that a user is formally barred from repeating a specific action that they would not be repeating otherwise. This worst case scenario is harmless, both to the project, and the editor, with the only difference being that the preventative measure that everyone seems to agree on is binding, as opposed to voluntary and non-binding. Evidence has also been presented that, contrary to the voluntary moratorium, TTH ''continues'' to work to expand the portal space, even as of today, and has not engaged in anything that would indicate that they're actually working to resolve the problem they created in good faith. This sort of thing seems to damage the case being made that a TBAN would be completely pointless. Additionally, there is equally prominent support that feels this sanction is an ''underreaction'', and that much stronger sanctions, up to a full site-ban, are warranted. Will notify and log appropriately. Regards, ] ] 04:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)}}
			<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
	I propose a ] on the creation of portals by ] for three months, to provide time for the development of new guidelines on portals, to provide time to dispose of some of the portals at ], and to provide time to consider whether it is necessary to mass-destroy portals.
	] (]) 02:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 03:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' the true number of portal creations by this user appears to be around 3500 portals since July 2018 (claims this here ). There were less than 1700 portals prior. On their talk they said it takes them 3 mins. 3 minutes is not enough time to properly consider content or what should be included. After we get a few automated portals deleted at MFD and the VP discussion reaches some closure I feel strongly we need to delete all the automated portals as a really bad idea. The template that automates these is up for deletion at ] Further, even though TTH disputes semi-automated creation here he says he uses "semi-automated methods of construction" and is using a "alpha-version script in development that speeds the process further" ] (]) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. I need to investigate this issue a little further, but I was quite concerned about this before I even saw the thread, because I discovered ] a few months ago. I've written a considerable portion of the content about Le Guin on Misplaced Pages, and even I think it's too narrow a topic for a portal; and when I raised this on the talk page, Transhumanist didn't respond, though they've been active. Transhumanist has been around for a while, so if they're willing to voluntarily stop creating portals while guidelines are worked out, I don't see a need for a formal restriction. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 03:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Response from The Transhumanist''' &ndash; The proposer of the hiatus, ], acknowledged that my efforts have been in good faith. Note also that no rules have been broken (to my knowledge) &ndash; I carefully went over the existing mass creation rule and portal scope rule before starting. I have been a participant in the hiatus of mass creation discussion, and have voluntarily ceased portal creation since Feb 21, so as not to aggravate the other participants of that discussion. (What purpose would that serve?) I wish the matter to be resolved as much as anyone else. Since scope is actively being discussed over at the portals guideline talk page, it makes little sense to create pages that might be removed shortly thereafter based on new creation criteria. I plan on participating in the discussions, perhaps continue working on (existing) portals, and I have no plans to defy the mass creation hiatus. Nor do I plan on pushing the envelope any further. The VPR community has expressed a consensus that mass creation be halted. Robert McClenon is seeking to go beyond community consensus specifically to stop me from creating any portals at all, which is not what the community decided. If editors in general are allowed to create portals, just not mass create them, as the response to UnitedStatesian's proposal has indicated, why should I be singled out here? A topic-ban would be unjustified given the circumstances, and would be punitive in nature. In such a case, I would like to know what I was being punished for. Sincerely, <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 06:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{yo|The Transhumanist}} I <u>do not share @]'s assumption of good faith</u>. The evidence which I have seen points far too strongly in the other direction for me to sustain that assumption.
	::Please see for example ]. I find it impossible to believe that a remotely competent editor acting in good faith could have created that portal-to-nowhere. If there is some good faith explanation which i overlooked, then I will enjoy hearing it ... but for now, that page looks like just one of many of examples of TTH intentionally creating utterly useless portsalspam in flagrant disregard of any version of the much-hacked portal guidelines, let alone the clear community consensus for selectivity in portal creation as expressed at ].
	::As others have noted, this is not TTH's first rampage of disruption. If there really was good faith this time, then TTH needs to urgently some serious explaining of their actions, because they <u>do not look like the good faith conduct of a competent editor</u>. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
			] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', given Transhumanist's utter refusal to listen to the input at the Proposals thread during the last days, or anywhere else for that matter. Would go further and support a full, indefinite topic ban or even site ban. Every time I've encountered The Transhumanist over the years, it was invariably over some pattern of mindless mechanistic mass creation of contentless pages, which he then kept pushing aggressively and single-mindedly into everybody's face. ] ] 07:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
			:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
			::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	And now we need to clean this mess up. It took me far too long to find and bundle thirty pages for deletion at ] compared to the 3 minutes a piece he took to create them, but better to head this off before he starts into the other 690 odd Indian districts. ] (]) 07:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
			:The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Quoted Comment on scale of this issue''' "Since July 1st (after ] was over), over 4500 portals, excluding redirects, have been created (]); the Transhumanist created more than 3500 (]); of those, at least 561 were created with a summary along the lines of {{tq|Started portal, in tab batch save, after batch was inspected: image slideshow minimum 2 pics, no empty sections. No visible formatting or Lua errors upon save, but there may be intermittent errors; report such bugs at WT:WPPORTD so that they can be fixed. Thank you.}} (]). Just a note --] (]) 04:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)" (end quote) |This off a base of just under 1800 Portals existing in July 2018. ] (]) 07:49, 1 March 2019 (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)
	*'''Support'''. Given the history with TTH—who has been pulling this same kind of "create an unwanted megaproject, force it through without discussion, and expect the rest of us to waste our time maintaining it" stunt for well over a decade (anyone remember ? ]? ?) and always tries the same "well, it wasn't explicitly banned so I assumed it was what you wanted" defense when called out on it, I'd strongly support a full and permanent topic ban and wouldn't be opposed to a site ban; anyone who's been here for as long as TTH and still can't see the issue with ], ] or ] is someone who's either being intentionally disruptive or is wilfully refusing to abide by Misplaced Pages's norms.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 08:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' temporary topic ban as a first step. We can look at a site ban if he ignores the topic ban. ] (]) 08:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' A topic ban is necessary while the issue is discussed and mass deletion considered. Adding thousands of inadequate and unmaintainable pages is not helpful. ] (]) 09:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' A generally-accepted principle of Misplaced Pages editing is that people who add content, and especially established editors, help to maintain it. Even assuming the best about Transhumanist here, I can't see how they can possibly do this with all these obscure portals. A ban on creating more of them has to be the first step. ] (]) 10:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Reluctantly Support''' We need time to curate and prune the low-quality portals, otherwise someone will panic and start deleting portals outright. 1:1 (topic to portal) parity is a nice goal, but it isn't readily achievable without the content to fill those portals.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 11:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''': TTH's approach seems rather cavalier at the moment. A change, as they say, is as good as a test. ]]] 11:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose/Wait''' Let's see if he complies with the eventual results of the discussion at VPP. If he voluntarily agrees to stop, based on community input, then sanctions are not necessary. This seems like overkill right now. First, let the community guidelines pass, THEN let him violate those before we rush to ban. --]] 12:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Massive Oppose - why the rush to ban?''' - the idea that giving a TBAN is the only appropriate means is bonkers - there are ongoing discussions. Currently you are trying to TBAN someone who hasn't broken policy. Let's get the agreements in, see if they stop and only then make any action ] (]) 12:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': Isn't this all very similar to the mass creation of "Outline of" articles by The Transhumanist that met with the same kind of opposition (and tanked an ) 10 years ago? If so, then I'd say a topic ban might be in order.--] (]) 13:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*Yes, it is. ] (]) 03:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' this or a complete topic ban from portals or if this continues simply a complete ban. His latest reply shows such a complete ] attitude, with utterly founded claims about the need to have thousands of portals to be able to find and fix issues (even though many of the now reported issues appear in portals from months ago already), and on the other hand that they have now trouble finding and fixing flaws: "With Legacypac and others actively nominating the new portals for deletion at MfD, our opportunities for improving them and discovering and fixing design flaws are diminishing quickly.", even though perhaps 2 or 3% of the new portals have been nominated, and more than enough similar problematic ones remain to work on (e.g. the inclusion of a DYK which links to ] on the ]...). Statements like "Legacypac's approach is to recommend deletion of the new type of portal due to design flaws such as this. " shows a thorough lack of understanding of why these MfDs are made and why so many people support them. The designs flaws are just a small part of the reason for deletion, the lack of interest in, maintenance of, and contents for many of these portals are much more important. ] (]) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	** The MfDs are potentially a prelude to ], which may accelerate the process of deletion. With that in mind, the potential shrinkage is worrisome. I'm so tired, I forgot to mention it above. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 14:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::The MfDs, which impact a tiny portion of these creations but a decent sample of various types of topics, are very useful for finding out what the community finds acceptable or desirable. The MfDs are consensus building (something you forgot/ignored). Soon we will be able to craft acceptance and deletion criteria based on the MfD results. That's how notability and other guidelines get developed, precedent. ] (]) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Unnecessary''' Yes, they need to stop, but they have already agreed to do so (see above: {{tq| <nowiki></nowiki> have voluntarily ceased portal creation since Feb 21, so as not to aggravate the other participants of that discussion}}), and they are unlikely to kneecap themselves by continuing under the massive scrutiny now present. Let's be civil and spare them the block log entry. Current discussion should drive the portal thing towards some practical steps that will likely include the deletion of most of the offending portals, and some agreed-on guideline that prevents mass creation from occurring again. Let's focus on that. --<span style="font-family:Courier">]</span> <small>(] · ])</small> 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' – The unilateral creation of thousands of portals must stop. This has been driven largely by one editor, who has made the creation and preservation of portals his or her singular objective. We've seen since the portals RfC that this user will stop at nothing to continue the march of portals...regardless of community concerns, and regardless of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Removing him or her from the portal topic area is the only way to prevent further disruption. ] — ] 15:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - as a first step. ] (]) 18:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Unnecessary''' per Elmidae. ]&nbsp;(]) 19:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Unnecessary''' at this time as the editor has already agreed to stop and discussions are ongoing. ] (]) 22:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Although TTH seerms to be acting in good faith {{they|The Transhumanist}} just don't know when to stop, so the community has to do it for them. ]] 23:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Reluctant support''' TT was one of the first users that was ever nice to me, many years ago, so I'd really rather not, but this is way out of line. Personally tripling the number of portals, a WP feature that almost nobody uses, and with apparenrly very little consideration to what subjects actualy merit a portal is grossly iresponsible. I get that they were upset at the proposed removal of portals, but this is a ridiculous overreaction that benefits nobody, and if they can't see that then a formal restriction is necessary. ] (]) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per ], and I assume it would also cover conversions of "old-style" Portals to the problematic one-page versions, as well as adding portal links to any article in the mainspace, and all other Portal-related editing. ] is spot on: in all of these Portal-related discussions, TTH has again shown what is to me a shocking failure of self-examination: no "Gee, this is '''another''' case where a broad swath of the community seems to have a major issue with my behavior, and thus should cause me to step back and assess whether there is 1) anything that, in retrospect, I should I have done differently, and 2) anything I can do ''now'' to a) try to mitigate the damage and/or b) regain the communitity's good favor." TTH's factual statement that "I have not created any new Portals since Feb. 21" is meaningless as a commitment to future behavior. ] (]) 03:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Unnecessary''' As mentioned above, moving to preemptively TBAN an editor who has already agreed to stop while discussion is underway serves no purpose here. If they choose to ignore the community consensus, then we can discuss further preventative measures, but doing so now is premature. <small>As an aside, most of those red errors that are being reported are simple fixes, so anyone who finds one can post a note on ] for one of our editors to fix, or simply add {{para|broken|yes}} to the {{tl|Portal maintenance status}} template at the top of the page.</small> — AfroThundr <sup>(] · ] · ])</sup> 06:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Support'''. Portals have not been working for for 13 years. A pause of 3 months is more than reasonable. --] (]) 04:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Mass portal creation should be consider foul of ]. Before continuing, I suggest seeking approval at an RfC, followed by the standard Bot approval process. --] (]) 04:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' This is a long-term problem with TTH. It used to be "Outline" pages, & maybe still is. He is always polite & cheery, but completely ignores all criticism and pushes on with his agenda, as his rather scary newsletters show. ] (]) 15:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. Sensible proposal. Agree with UnitedStatesian that this should also cover conversions of old-style portals. ] (]) 05:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' TTH has agreed to stop for now, he doesn't need a formal ban when he's already doing it voluntarily. ]]] 17:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Per ], the user has agreed to stop and has not formally violated policies. We don't need more portals and this behavior needs to stop, but it seems that this has already been achieved for now while discussion is ongoing. — ] (]) 08:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - Uneccessary, as The Transhumanist has already ceased such activities (i.e. {{tq|I have ... voluntarily ceased portal creation since Feb 21 ... I have no plans to defy the mass creation hiatus .}}). <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 00:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. This is circular reasoning. "I don't think we should have these portals, and others disagree, so I want to punish/shame my principal opponent in hopes of winning." This is several forms of ] fallacy all at once (including {{lang|la|]}}, ], ], and ]). {{em|If}} consensus firmly decides we don't want these portals, and {{em|then if}} an editor were to defy that decision and create a bunch more portals of exactly the sort we decided were unwanted, {{em|only then}} would a topic-ban of any kind be warranted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Strong support''' this and any other restraint on TTH, up to and including perma-siteban. After stumbling on some micro-portals and MFDing them, I spent a lot of time in September last year discussing these issue ubsuccessfully with the Portals project (see e.g. ], ], more at ])
	:It was absolutely clear throughout those discussions that TTH had no regard to the balance of opinion in last years RFC, and repeatedly personalised all reasoned criticism of his conduct as "bias", "personal attack" or "bullying"
	:There were a few other voices in those discussions who urged restraint, such as @], but TTH took no notice of any of it. So all that's happening now was flagged well in advance, and TTH paid no heed until a community outcry. TTH is now pledging restraint, but made similar promises back in September which were ignored when when the heat was off. --] <small>] • (])</small> 07:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose.''' Respectfully to supporters, this idea of a TB that targets a single editor for something that several of us have been involved with comes off as witch-hunty and scapegoaty. I know ]; however, that is how it seems – at least to me. ''''']'''''<small>,&nbsp;ed.&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>09:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
	**That's a really weird oppose, @]. If you know it's not actually witch-hunty and scapegoaty, what's the problem? --] <small>] • (])</small> 09:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	***uhm, I "know" because I really do want to AGF; the problem is that I can't stand by and watch forty lashes given to someone when I helped tie him to the whipping post, so to speak. Hold us all responsible if you want, but don't single just one of us out for something several of us helped do. Hope that's a bit clearer. Thank you for asking, because I do sometimes have difficulty expressing myself adequately with the written word. ''''']'''''<small>,&nbsp;ed.&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>10:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
	****{{yo|Paine Ellsworth}} thanks for the reply. Can you explain more about what you mean by {{tq|helped tie him to the whipping post, so to speak}}?
	::::I am puzzled by it, because while I was aware that a few others ] supported auto-portals, I was not specifically aware that anyone had encouraged {{yo|The Transhumanist|p=}}'s mass-creation sprees of micro-portals and nano-portals.
	::::For example, did you or others support the ?
	::::Did you or others support or encourage the creation of ] (I have now nominated it at ]), which was literally a portal to nowhere?
	::::I ask this, because it seems to me that there is in fact massive gap between the culpability of a) those WP:WPPORT members who supported creating far more more portals than the community supports; and b) TTH, who repeatedly rapid-created created portals which unavoidably meet ].
	::::That's why I think it's fair to single out TTH. But if I have misunderstood the gap in responsibility, please correct me. --] <small>] • (])</small> 01:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::Responsibility begins with the discussion that saved the portals. It gave the impression that not only was portalspace worth saving, it was worth improving. Then there were those of us who joined the portals project to help when we can, and we did. Perhaps the nom should be held responsible for comparing TTH's actions with the Neelix redirect fiasco? Incomparable, because Neelix created all those filthy dirty redirects all alone, with no help from any members of WikiProject Redirect. TTH had help creating all those filthy dirty portals, though, and with spreading their application. This is outrageously overkill. TTH has ceased making portals all on their own. The nom knows this and yet still had to suggest a topic ban. Why? In my own crummy way of expressing myself with words: pffft! ''''']'''''<small>,&nbsp;ed.&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>12:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Oppose''' per Elmidae, SMcCandlish and Jonathunder. The user has already voluntarily ceased creating new portals since February 21. There's no need for "the beatings to continue until morale improves". <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 01:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Northamerican1000 should also be banned from creating more portals. Creating automated navbox portals that overlap existing portal topics is not cool. ] (]) 01:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::You need to stop scolding everybody who has ever created a portal. I have breached no policies. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 02:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::Au contraire: North, you need to desist from defending this flood of portalspam. Consensus is now clear that it has gone way too far, and a year ago at ] was very clear that a significant minority of editors supported deleting all portals, while many more supported a purge., Instead you and some others went a spree in the opposite direction. That was at best reckless; at worst, it was wilful disregard of consensus ]. And ] is core policy, so don't push your luck. The guideline ] is also relevant. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::The handful of portals I have created is certainly not a spree. Tired of this typecasting and ] against any and all portal content creators. Does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. My !vote is regarding the matter at hand regarding TTH; that's it. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 02:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Tired of you defending the indefensible, and then claiming victimhood when challenged. Portals are ''not'' content, they are a navigational device ... and defending a spammer does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' TTH stopped created portals when asked and has not resumed since. A topic ban is not needed to stop disruption and imposing one about three weeks after they stopped would be punitive in the extreme. I am though deeply troubled by the personal attacks from some very experienced editors above. ] (]) 11:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as unnecessary, two weeks after it was proposed. As I understand it, there were multiple editors involved in this effort, so I don't see why we'd TBAN just one. AFAIK the editor at issue has so far kept their promise to stop making portals for the last two weeks. There's no need for a tban right now, as evidenced by the fact that we've had two weeks of discussion on this topic without a tban in place. Nuke the content, not the editor. Of course, that's based on the voluntary self-ban continuing to be observed. If that were to change, so would my !vote. {{nao}} ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 17:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	==== Lack of good faith from ] ====
	I posted above to dissent from {{yo|UnitedStatesian|p=}}'s assertion that {{lu|The Transhumanist}} has been acting in good faith.
			== Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article ==
	I have just encountered a further small example, from today, of TTH's bad faith. In this case, TTH added the <code><nowiki>nostubs=no</nowiki></code> parameter to ], contrary to the general consensus that stubs should not be included in a portal's article lists. I see no evidence that TTH sought a consensus to do so ... and the change was was sneaky, because the edit summary {{tq|add parameter}} did not disclose the nature of the change.
			{{atop
			| status = Venue corrected
			| result = Now at ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	Since that portal is being discussed at ], the change should have been disclosed there.
			}}
			], I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - ] (]) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	That edit was of course only a small thing, and it has no practical effect because the sum total of non-biographical articles about ] is 1 (the head article). But at this stage, if TTH was acting with any good faith at all, the appropriate way to demonstrate it would have been to support prompt deletion of this portal-to-nowhere, rather than trying to expand its scope into stubs.
			:You should report this at ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. ] (]) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	I have just checked the last 3 weeks of TTH's contribs, and have found precisely zero instances where TTH has supported the deletion of even the most ridiculously tiny-scope portal which they have created, let alone any instance where they assisted the cleanup by identifying and CSD/MFDing inappropriate creations.
	I could understand that at this stage TTH might feel dejected by the deprecation of their portalspamming, and prefer to walk away from the topic ... but that explanation for inaction is undermined by a sneaky attempt to rescue a useless portal by adding stubs to its topic list. This breaches the spirit, if not the letter, of the self-restraint which TTH had promised. --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== Unclear policy ==
	===Proposal 2 - Indefinite ban on page creation ===
	{{collapse top|withdrawn}}
	{{archive top|insufficient support for this idea. Withdraw ] (]) 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)}}
	Helpful comments above lead me to these numerous Drafts by ] (ranging from 1 to 12 years old) => ].
	This is an obsession with mass creation of content no one wants. He has been creating hundreds of useless pages for years and at least 3500 useless automated Portals in the last few months. He has used up his allotment of lifetime page creations on Misplaced Pages and has a maintenance job to do now on his creations. He should also be working on removal of these useless pages. Therefore I propose a TBAN on page creations in all namespaces, and a TBAN on moves of pages into Mainspace or Portalspace (to prevent the moving of presetup but now empty existing drafts into mainspace), with the following exceptions: Starting an XfD (so he can assist in cleaning yup his mess) and talkpages of other users (for vandal warning etc so he can maintain quality on his creations) and talkpages in general of any existing page. TBAN may be appealed to AN which would want to approve a specific plan for the types of pages he wants to create.
	*'''Support''' as proposer ] (]) 10:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' in current form - {{tq|a TBAN on page creations in all namespaces}} is too drastic, give how many ] that cuts off. I can understand prohibition on mainspace, portalspace, wikipedia space, or even userspace. But TTH not being able to start talk pages? To upload files? To start community books? That's unnecessary. --] (]) 10:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:I explicitly exempted talkpages of users but modified so all talkpages could be allowed. If he wants to create 500 books he should get permission. If there is a desire to create articles, he could ask for a relaxation, going through AfC for example, but with a preapproved plan. ] (]) 11:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' This seems overbroad, locking down the English Misplaced Pages over one user. --<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 11:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:Umm, this user has a long history of mass page creations. When people object he says no one told him he could not do it. A restriction would not prevent him from creating pages, it would just require him to get the plan preapproved. I don't know what crazy idea he might try next, so block everything except what he gets the community to agree to first. ] (]) 11:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::The problem isn’t page creation, it’s MASS page creation (usually using automated tools). Essentially, TTH routinely sacrifices quality for the sake of volume. It is the focus on volume that needs addressing. ] (]) 12:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:::Yes MASS creation. We don't know what he will MASS create next, so let him propose what he wants to create BEFORE he creates it. If his idea is reasonable, great, but if not we save a ton of work and drama. ] (]) 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::::So why does the original proposal not ban him from mass creation? --] (]) 13:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::::::Because 3500 pages is not Mass Creation according to his post near the top of the VPP thread: "Please clarify what you mean by "mass creation"; the figure provided above is less than 10 new pages per day per editor, which has never been considered mass creation by any WP standard. Also, please clarify what you mean by "semi-automated", since all software programs, including Misplaced Pages's internal text editor, may be considered semi-automated. Thank you. — The Transhumanist 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)" ] (]) 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - the problem is limited to the Portal: namespace; there is no evidence provided that there is a problem in any other namespace (I disagree with the foregone conclusion presented about outlines). This is overreaching by a wide margin. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
	{{collapse bottom}}
	===Proposal 3: Relax tagging and notification requirements for Grouped Portal MfDs===
	{{collapse top|Withdrawn in favor of Proposal 4}}
	{{Archive top|Housekeeping withdraw in favor of Proposal 4 ] (]) 13:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)}}
	Creating group MfDs for portals is almost as hard as creating one of these portals. If you use twinkle it creates a bunch of redundent discussion pages and floods the creator's talkpage with templates. TheTranshuminist is insisting every page in a group nomination be tagged for deletion . He is technically correct, but this generates a lot of extra work for no real benefit. Notifying the creator with the first nom in the group should be sufficient. It is not like there are tons of editors with a vested interest in an ]. I expect there will be a few more group nominations so addressing this will speed this up. ] (]) 18:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
	:Well, there is no notification ''requirement'' that I'm aware of , so I think you can consider that relaxed. Tagging however, is usually considered a hard-and-fast requirement. It isn't exactly fair to discuss deleting a page while not giving any indication to users watching that page. ] (]) 18:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
	:: But in this particular case, there is no realistic expectation that there are any page watchers to begin with, other than the single individual who created them all. ] ] 18:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps any change to the requirements should wait until until it has been agreed which topics merit a portal. There is no urgent need to carry out a mass deletion before deciding what to keep. ] (]) 18:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::Grouped MfDs create precedent and help us create policy based on the result. For example if 20+ District of India portals are deleted at MfD a precident against creation of 690 more such portals has been established. Similarly an effort to create portals on all the counties in the US or regional districts in Canada would be easier to shut down.
	::::Given how we found two recently automated now broken portals linked off the Mainpage, is the creator even watching them?
	::::The Neelix situation creates precedent for this relaxation. We went even further there and dispensed with discussion. ] (]) 18:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::Thanks for the clarification. Grouping portals which are clearly going to stand or fall together, such as districts of India, makes sense. ] (]) 18:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
	'''Oppose.''' Tagging is a requirement, notification is not. And I just completed tagging on all of the Districts of India that are in the bundled nom. Assuming the current crop of MfD's close as delete, the solution is to propose a temporary ] X3. ] (]) 00:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	: Those portals aren't representative, they're fringe cases. The set of new portals include a wide range of scope, for example, and many had additional work done on them. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	:: What do you mean by "fringe cases" and "representative"? They seem very representative to me. ] (]) 03:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	'''Oppose''' &ndash; Any readers of a page that's up for deletion has a right to know that the page may go bye bye, and that's why the deletion policy requires notice. There's no need to create a separate MfD page for each page being nominated for deletion. Posting a notice on each page that leads directly to the same discussion is easy. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - As ] says, we need X3. ] (]) 04:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	* The is no need to relax anything. Mass tagging and mass notification is no great issue. If the consensus is that they should all be deleted, Feds them all through mfd in one list. Ask The Transhumanist to tag and notify. I trust that he will cooperate. Stop the panic. —] (]) 11:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
	{{collapse bottom}}
	=== Concerning further proposals ===
	{{atop|This is a central community noticeboard, which carries no less inherent validity than VPP. This is the relevant discussion, and as long as wide-reaching proposals are properly advertised to the community, it makes no difference whether they're listed here or at VPP. Misplaced Pages is ], and petty procedural objections can never override the process of consensus-building. Please focus on the discussions themselves, rather than meta-discussions regarding procedure. ] ] 05:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)}}
	The proper venue for proposals is ]. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 01:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	::AN is a perfectly good place for many kinds of proposal. With over 300,000 edits and many years here you should know better. ] (]) 03:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	::: AN is not the proper place for a proposal on regulating content (referring to portals loosely as content). The way forward does not require administrative action, TTH will respect consensus. —] (]) 12:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::@], I admire your AGF, but I think it is wildly misplaced.
	::::This whole drama arose because after a far-from-unanimous RFC consensus not to actually delete the whole portal namespace, TTH chose to invert the meaning of that consensus to "create thousands of crappy new semi-automated microportals at a rate of up 40 per hour" ... and then go batshit raging at anyone who MFed some of the junk or pointed out that the consensus was ''not'' actually for a pressure hose of portalspam.
	::::I don't know whether TTH has comprehension issues or just disdains the consensus, but I don't see any other explanation for the last year of TTH antics ... and either way, I see zero reason to expect that TTH will {{tq|respect consensus}}. --] <small>] • (])</small> 10:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::: I’ve known TTH for a long time, although I have never worked with him. He always seemed perfectly reasonable, and really interested in a very worthwhile thing, navigation aids. There’s no problem there. I haven’t followed portal discussions closely, but I have never seen TTH rude or obstinate or disdainful. There must have been a misapprehension. I encouraged him to make auto-portals, and he did, and now he is trouble for it. I think the answer is at ]. AN should not be for making and implementing portal-specific proposals, the proposals should be directed at TTH. Follow the Bot process for any auto-portal creation. Do not create any new portals without an approved bot. That sort of thing. —] (]) 12:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	:'''Wrong venue''' In the nutshell at the top in read mode, and again in bold and red in the edit window, the words scream '''This noticeboard is for <span style="color:red">issues affecting administrators generally</span> – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.'''. What we have here is a big idea involving the work of everyone. At most there should be a pointer diff here at AN. ] (]) 12:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	As I see it the reason this ended up here is because the initial proposal was for a topic ban, which is AN material. The other related proposals were put here for convenience. At any rate it’s not grounds for a procedural close. —] (]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 01:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	* This is absolutely the wrong venue, since this is not an "issue affecting administrators generally", it's a proposal (actually a pile of confused and confusing proposals – "I'm not getting my way in version A, so try version B. Nope? Okay, how about C? No? Then here's proposal D ...") that would affect the entire project, and is essentially a content-presentation and navigation matter, not an administrator matter of any kind. This is basically a variant of forum shopping, where instead of moving to a different venue, the idea is dressed up in a new outfit and put before the same venue over and over. The wrong venue. (And is actually regular forum-shopping, too, since we just had a big RfC about this last year.) ] is the place for something like this, especially since one of the various competing proposals includes making changes to ] policy, something we very, very rarely touch and only after considerable site-wide debate and a clear community consensus that it's required and will not have unintended negative consequences (ever noticed that the sequence of lettered and numbered CSD criteria has gaps in it? The community has revoked several CSD criteria as going too far). CSD is pretty much our most dangerous policy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 16:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Yeah, if I were the one starting this, I would’ve put it on one of the village pumps. At any rate it’s on ] now so it will be seen by those who frequent the village pumps (though it won’t show up on watchlists). Also, only two out of the nine ] were repealed for “going too far”. 6/9 were removed because they were redundant and they were folded into other CSDs. This leaves CSD X1, the prototype for the CSD X3 proposal, which was repealed at the conclusion of the Neelix redirect cleanup. —] (] &#124; ]) 19:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
	===Proposal 4: Provide for ] criterion X3===
	<small>{{admin comment}} This proposal is being advertised at ] and ], and it has been requested that it stay open for at least 30 days. ] ] 05:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
	----
	{{rfc|policy|prop|rfcid=EE4F464}}
	I am entering and numbering this proposal in order to get it into the record, but am requesting that action on it be deferred until the current round of MFDs are decided.
	As per ], Create ] criterion X3, for portals created by ] between April 2018 and March 2019. Tagging the portals for speedy deletion will provide the notice to users of the portals, if there are any users of the portals. I recommend that instructions to administrators include a request to wait 24 hours before deleting a portal. This is a compromise between the usual 1 to 4 hours for speedy deletion and 7 days for XFD. The availability of Twinkle for one-click tagging will make it easy to tag the pages, while notifying the users (if there are any). ] (]) 04:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	: This proposal should be posted in a wider venue, such as ] or ]. Many of those portals have been in place for months, making WP:AN too narrow a venue for them. CSD notices wouldn't be placed until after the discussion is over, and therefore would not serve to notify the users of those portals of the discussion. A notice to the discussion of this proposal, since it is a deletion discussion, should be placed on each of the portals, to allow their readers to participate in the discussion. The current round of MfDs are not a random sampling of the portals that were created, and therefore are not necessarily representative of the set. The portals themselves vary in many ways, including scope, the amount of time they've been accessed by readers, quality, number of features, picture support, volume of content, amount of work that went into them, number of editors who worked on them, length, readership, etc. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 07:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	::How would you suggest to get a representative sample? ] (]) 07:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	::: Thank you for asking. That would be difficult now, since there are already a bunch of portals nominated for MfD. If those were included, then the sample would already be skewed. I expect a truly random sample would reveal that some portals are worth keeping and others are not. A more important question would be "How would we find the portals worth keeping? Which is very similar to the question "what should the creation criteria for portals be?", the very thing they are discussing at the portal guidelines page right now. Many of these portals may qualify under the guideline that is finally arrived upon there. For example, they are discussing scope. There are portals of subjects that fall within Vital articles Level 2, 3, 4, and 5, and there are many portals of subjects of similar scope to the subjects at those levels. And many of the portals had extra work put into them, and who knows how many had contributions by other editors besides me. Another factor is, that the quality of the navigation templates the portals are powered by differs, and some of the portals are powered by other source types, such as lists. Some have hand-crafted lists, as there are multiple slideshow templates available, one of which accepts specific article names as parameters. Another way to do that is provide a manual list in the subtopics section and power the slideshow from that. Some of the portals are of a different design than the standard base template. Some are very well focused, contextually, while others are not. For example, some of the portals have multiple excerpt slideshows to provide additional context. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 07:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' in principle. Looking at the existing MFD discussions, TTH seems determined to drag and wikilawyer as much as possible to try to derail the discussions, even for blatantly and indefensibly inappropriate microportals like those discussed at ]; it's not a good use of anyone's time to go through the same timesink 5000+ times. (The cynic in me says that a speedy criterion wouldn't work as while the creators wouldn't be able to decline the templates themselves, TTH and Dreamy Jazz would probably just follow the tagger around removing the speedy templates from each other's creations.) In practice, it would probably be more efficient to do what we did with Neelix and have a streamlined MFD nomination process, in which "created by TTH" is considered sufficient grounds for deletion at MFD and they default to delete unless someone can make a strong argument for keep. MFD is less gameable and also gives a space for people to defend them in those rare cases where they're actually worth keeping. (Every time I look, I find that the flood of inane and pointless TTH portals has spread further than I thought; ], anyone?)&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 08:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:Dreamy Jazz seems unlikely do that, having already decided during this debate to stop donating their time to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' &ndash; Another option would be to move these to draft space. The templates and lua modules could be modified so that the portals render right in that namespace (I wish I would have thought of this before). Being in draft space would give time to fix their various problems (keeping in mind that micro-scope is not fixable), and identify the ones worth keeping. I would agree not to move any of them personally, and would propose/request such moves after the new creation criteria guidelines for portals are settled upon. I would also be willing to tag those that did not meet those guidelines with CSD (as creator), saving Legacypac the trouble of nominating them at MfD (he mentioned somewhere that he thought I should help clean up this "mess"). Another benefit of this strategy is that if any of them sit in draft space too long without further development, they automatically become subject to deletion per the draft space guidelines, and those that reach that age without any edits can be deleted en masse without time-consuming effort-wasting MfD discussions. This course of action would of course need the participation of some lua programmers to add the necessary functionality to the modules, which would be a good upgrade for those, to allow for portal drafts to be created in the future. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	:: P.S. {{ping|Iridescent|Legacypac}} (pinging) <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 09:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*Absolutely not. The problem is that hundreds of portals on obscure topics makes an unmaintainable mess. Passing it to another namespace does not solve the problem which is that the portals are not helpful and are not maintainable. Automated creation of outlines/portals/anything must stop. ] (]) 09:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*No. I tried moving one broken portal to Draft as a test and it broke even more stuff. Not worth the effort to modify everything for draft space and then let the same little group of editors release them willy nilly back into portal space. Since this group ignored their own ] "''portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers.''" why should anyone trust them to follow stricter guidelines? ] (]) 09:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*Definitely not. What possible benefit would there be to cluttering up another namespace with ≈5000 pages that will never serve any useful purpose? If you want to goof around with wikicode, nobody's stopping you installing your own copy of Mediawiki; we're not your personal test site.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 15:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*As a general rule, Portal pages should '''not''' be draftified. In fact, we should not usually move anything not designed to be an article to draft space. Draft portals should be in portal space, just like draft books should be in book space and draft templates in template space (pages with subpages are a pain to move, and many namespaces have special features that suggest keeping drafts in the same space if possible). If a portal is not ready for viewing by the general public, tag it with a relevant maintenance template and make sure it is not linked to from mainspace or from other portal pages.
	:*In the case at hand, TT's mass created portals do not seem like they will all be soon made ready for wider consumption, so deleting them seems the better option. —''']''' (]·]) 20:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' nuking from orbit: It's the only way to be sure. ]]] 09:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*How is this the "only way" to be "sure"? What about actually viewing the portals themselves, as opposed to mass deleting them all sight unseen? <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' enough with the wikilawyering and obstruction. This proposal is a little too narrow though - TTH created 3500+ automated portals but others in his little team created around 1000 more. I just grouped some by ] into ] ] (]) 09:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' These useless broken portals have to go. ] (]) 14:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*Could you provide any evidence that all of the portals are "broken"? Many of them that I have viewed and used are fully functional, and not broken at all. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', too many, too quickly, not enough thought went into their creation. Nuke these, revert other portals that were better before TTH "restarted" them. Automation should help with portal maintenance, not replace portal maintenance or move the maintenance burden to navboxes or other places. —''']''' (]·]) 14:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''', sensible and fair way to deal with these. ] (]) 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''': ] could never handle the overwhelming amount of unnecessary and unsustainable portals, considering the magnitude of TTH's portal creation entering the thousands. –'']''<sup>]</sup> 20:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' nuking. ] (]) 20:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Transcluded to ]. ] (]) 20:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' mass creation of portals on these topics isn't appropriate without wider discussion, and the automated/semi-automated method used to create them doesn't produce high quality output. ], for example, is about a county with a population of 3,240, and consists of the lead of the main article, a few random contextless images grabbed from that article (mostly maps or logos) and portal boilerplate. Cleaning these up will require a temporary speedy deletion criterion, I don't think MfD could handle the load. ''''']''''' 22:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as proposer. I had already suggested deferring, but am satisfied that it is going ahead to mass-delete. I will add that, after a consensus is reached on whether and how to use portals, any that were deleted and are needed are available at ]. ] (]) 01:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	* This mass page creation went against ] and at least the spirit of ] if not the letter. An appropriate remedy for automated script and semi-automated creation is speedy deletion. Did you know they were driving for 10,000 portals at a rapid pace? It's here ] (]) 04:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' any and all notions of creating new CSD criteria at any drama board. Discussions here are too rushed, too emotive, too reactionary. Use ]. Consider using a WT:CSD subpage RfC. Do not attempt to mandate the detail of policy from a drama board. --] (]) 04:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Transclusion is not good enough. The discussion needs to be searchable from WT:CSD, and the specifics of any and all new criteria need to address the ]. --] (]) 04:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Many editors at the Village Pump discussion, the Tban discussion above, and at MfDs also supported this. We do not need to fragment this discussion further. ] (]) 05:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	::: Proposal 1 will make this Proposal 4 moot. This Proposal 4 is not a proper CSD implementation. --] (]) 05:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::{{reply|SmokeyJoe}} Proposal 1 is about stopping TTH from creating new portals. Proposal 4 is about deleting those he created in the last couple of months. How is P1 going to make P4 moot? —''']''' (]·]) 10:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::: List them all in an MfD, if they must all be deleted. A CSD that enables self appointed decision makes for which should go and which might be ok, is inferior to MfD. MfD can handle a list of pages. —] (]) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::If you want them all at MfD stop objecting to the listing of specific Portals at MfD. ] (]) 01:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::: No. Some of the Portals I would support for deletion, and others definitely no. This makes the proposal for a CSD invalid. It fails the CSD new criterion criteria. The proposal is neither '''Objective''' or '''Uncontestable'''. It would pick up a lot of portals that should '''not''' be deleted. --] (]) 01:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Support'''. No care at all went into these portals, they are mindless creations with loads of errors and little actual benefit for our readers. I would also support the restoration of all pre-existing portals to the pre-transhumanist version, the new "single page" version may require less maintenance, but is way too often clearly inferior (see e.g. , which is more like vandalism than actual improvement, and has been reversed since). ] (]) 10:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. Anyone restoring old multi-subpage portals should bear in mind that they will require maintenance. If there is no-one willing to maintain them, they, too are likely to be MfDed. No old-style portal with a willing and active maintainer has been converted as far as I know, so I suggest that anyone restoring them should be willing to maintain them. &middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	**No. Converting an unmaintained but well-designed portal into an unmaintained semi-automated worse portal is not the way forward. Any claims that the new portals are maintained or don't need maintaining is false, as the many problematic new portals demonstrate. ] (]) 17:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	**] was converted (more than once) although it has maintainers. To make sure your portal isn't "improved", you need to put a specific template on the page, which isn't very obvious. There are old-style multi page portals that require only minimal maintenance, and where the conversion removed specific features. All those should be reverted, also to protect the subpages from overzealous deleters (the worst is deleting the /box-footer subpages; this breaks all old revisions by removing a necessary closing div). —''']''' (]·]) 17:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' A mass-deletion of the new generation portals. Listing them at MfD will be sufficient for any that do not meet the criteria laid out in the ] (which are still ]). It makes little sense to remove the whole batch because some of them are problematic. They would need to be properly triaged to ensure the good ones are not caught in the process. <small>I would of course, help with said triage. We're not trying to create more work for the community, just preserve good content.</small> — AfroThundr <sup>(] · ] · ])</sup> 23:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - You created more work for the community by creating thousands of portals, some of which do not work, and with no intention to maintain them. I see no evidence that this effort created good content that needs to be preserved. ] (]) 04:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
	:There is no new content in the automated portals, it's all poorly repackaged bits of existing content. ] (]) 04:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
	::All portals, old or new, good or bad, manual or automated, repackage existing content. That's their job. New content belongs in articles. ] (]) 11:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' per wumbolo below: ] already covers a number of these, the rest should be discussed. I still stand by my original comment which follows this addition. ] ]] ]] 22:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Original comment: Weak oppose on principle. CSD is a ], and I don't think we should be hasty to add another criterion that skips our usual consensus process. I'm fine with nuking these portals and not opposed to deleting them, any diamonds in the rough will prove their worth by being created again, but I would prefer one big MfD with the rationale "created by The Transhumanist" which allows proper determination of consensus and gives those who want to spend their time triaging a chance to do so. ] ]] ]] 08:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Building multipage MfDs like ] is time consuming and tedious. A temporary CSD is rhe way to go. Consensus against this mess of new portals has already been established at VP, AN and in the test MfDs. ] (]) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' due to the massive amount of time it would take to put the ~4500 portals through MfD. MfD has been swamped with portal deletion requests from some time ago, and I can't see all this stuff removed via MfD in the foreseeable future (as someone said earlier, there is still a lot of Outlines left over from one of TTH's previous projects, so who knows how long it would take for MfD to delete all of this). This CSD X3 would streamline the process, and it would probably only take a few days to a week. It would help, as also mentioned earlier, to extend the criterion to the other users involved in the mass creation of these portals. ] (]·]·]) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	** MfD has never had an issue to nominations of list of pages. 4500 separate MfD nominations would be absurd, but a list would be OK. If each is new, and has a single author, notifications of the author will be trivial. A CSD proposal shortcuts a discussion of the merits of the new portals, and pre-supposes deletion to be necessary, contrary to ]. --] (]) 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	::TTH demands we place notification on every portal. We can skip notifying him, but building even 20 page MfD's is very time consuming. How do you propose to discuss 4500 or even 100 assorted portals at a time? These took 3 min to make - but far more than 3 min to list, tag, discuss and vote, then delete - when you add up all the time required from various editors and Admins. The test MfDs are sufficent and the very strong opposition to this automated portal project justifies this temporary CSD. ] (]) 04:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	::: "TTH demands we place notification on every portal"? ], I have missed that post by him. If he did that, it needs to be repudiated. If these are new pages, and he is the only author, it is sufficient to notify him once. If all 4500 are essentially variations on the same thing, as long as the full set is defined, and browsable, we can discuss them all together at MfD. --] (]) 05:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::] during the Portland Oregon neighborhood MFD I specifically said I was not tagging all the related portals but he insisted I tag here I could not get support in the section above to relax the MfD tagging because others wanted this CSD. During the Delete Portals RFC TTH went all out insisting every portal including the community portal be tagged for deletion - then he did it himself. That brought in all kinds of casual infrequent editors who were mostly against deleting the community portal. (Even though that was Pretty much pulled out of consideration for deletion before the tagging project). That massive tagging derailed the deletion RFC. By making cleanup as hard as possible TTH is making a lot of people want to nuke everything. ] (]) 06:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::: Legacypac's analysis is erroneous and misleading. The ] RFC was a deletion discussion, and posting a notice on each page up for deletion is required by deletion policy. Note that the Community Portal was only mentioned twice. A portal that was the basis for about 50 oppose votes was the Current Events portal. Neither the Community Portal nor the Current Events portal were exempted in the proposal at any time. If you didn't count those, that left the count at about 150 in support of eliminating portals to about 250 against. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::: {{ping|SmokeyJoe}} (edit conflict) See the top of this section for the referred to statement, which is not exactly as he quoted. A notice posted at the top of the portals slated by this proposal would be appropriate. Legacypac has been posting notice for his multi-page nominations using the {{tl|mfd}} template, which auto-generates a link to an mfd page of the same title as the page the template is posted on. Rather than following the template's instructions for multiple pages, he's been creating an MfD page for each, and redirecting them to the combined mfd. Then a bot automatically notifies the creator of each page (me), swamping my user talk page with redundant notifications. Thus, Legacypac believes he'll have to create thousands of mfd redirect pages, and that I somehow want 3500+ notifications on my talk page. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 07:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::You want us to manually tag pages for deletion that you used an automated script to create? You flooded Misplaced Pages with useless pages in violation of ] but you are worried about having to clean up your talkpage notices? Just create an archiving system for your talkpage like we did for ]'s talkpage. If you don't want notices you could start tagging pages that fail your own guidelines with "delete by author request" instead of commenting on how we will do the cleanup. ] (]) 08:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::TTH, if you don't want so many deletion notices on your talk page, then remember in future not to create thousands of spam pages. Please help with the cleanup, rather than complaining about it.
	:::::::@]: good work MFDing the spam, but it does seem that you are using a somewhat inefficient approach to tagging. Have you tried asking at WP:BOTREQ for help? In the right hands, tools such as AWB make fast work of XfD tagging. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' whatever course of action that will result in every portal created in this manner being deleted with the minimal of time and effort required. TTH has set up his automated tool, created a massive mess, and left it unattended for others to sort out. It should take less time to clean up this mess than it did to make it, not more. Nuke the lot and if there is anything of value lost then TTH can manually request pages to be restored one at a time at DRV. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em">]+]</u> 11:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per Fish and karate. ] — ] 14:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' as written. I could support something that explicitly excluded portals which are in use and/or are being developed, but the current proposal to indiscriminately delete everything, including active portals, unless the admin chooses to notify any editors and the ones notified happen to be online in a narrow time frame is significantly overly broad. ] (]) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Not that portals are that bad, but I don't think we need portals on smaller subjects. (] when we already have ]? ], anyone?) Some might be worth keeping, but a lot are unneeded and unmaintainable. At least it's not a {{u|Neelix}} case. ]]] 16:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
	**{{replyto|SemiHypercube}} "Some might be worth keeping" is actually an argument against this proposal. ] (]) 12:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	***{{re|Thryduulf}} Kind of, but that might be a reason not to just mass delete all at once. In the Neelix case there ''were'' some redirects that were actually useful, so a separate CSD criterion was used to keep some redirects at the admins' discretion, so this might be a similar case (before you say that contradicts my "it's not a Neelix case" statement, I meant that in terms of what the redirects were about) ]]] 12:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	***It violates points 1 and 2 of the requirements for CSD criteria: objectivity and unconestability. Unless ''all'' the portals covered should be speedily deleted then ''none'' of them should be. If you only want to delete some of them then you should be opposing this criterion (just like you should have opposed the subjective Neelix criterion). ] (]) 12:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Only realistic way to deal with these. ] (]) 01:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Request the posting of a notice at the top of each of the pages being nominated here for mass deletion, as required by the Deletion Policy.''' This proposal is currently a gross violation of the deletion policy because it is a discussion to delete 3500+ pages, that have been created over the span of a year, that are presently being viewed hundreds of thousands of times per month (projected to millions of times over the coming year) by readers of Misplaced Pages. The proposal for mass deletion has been made without the required notice being posted at the top of the pages to be deleted. This is being decided by a handful of editors unbeknownst to the wider community, namely, the readership of the portals to be deleted. It may be that those reading such notices would decide that the portals should be deleted, but the point here is that you are denying them the opportunity to participate in the deletion discussion as required by the deletion policy. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Request you stop wasting people's fucking time. ] (]) 21:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	* He switched back to Outlines ] which are another unpopular plague for Misplaced Pages. The assertion that hundreds of thousands of readers a month are looking at his 3500 portals is fanciful at best and not supported by readership stats. ] (]) 21:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::'''Support opposing anything TTH says from now on'''. Per ]. ]]] 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::'''Strong oppose taking ad hominem arguments into consideration'''. ] (]) 13:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::'''Oppose ]ING'''. ]]] 15:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*@], {{em|technically}} he's probably telling the truth. Even obvious drivel like ] , thanks to webcrawlers and people who have the articles watchlisted and are wondering "what's this mystery link that's just been spammed onto the article I wrote?"; multiply that by 3500 and you have 500,000 pageviews per month right there.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 22:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Neelix created about 50,000 redirects, which were reviewed by the community. The number of portals is an order of magnitude smaller. If X3 is to be introduced, it should involve a similar review process. We should certainly delete portals which have too narrow a scope or are of poor quality and cannot be improved. However, systematic deletion of all portals which qualify for consideration, purely on an '']'' argument, would be as wrong as semi-automatic creation. ] (]) 10:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Absolutely not. Look at the rate these were created sometimes several dozen an hour, and sometimes an average of 12 seconds each. If so little thought went into creation, why make deletion so difficult? The Neelix cleanup took far too long (I was a big part of it) and we deleted the vast majority of those redirects anyway the extra hard way. As far as I could see the editors who insisted we review everything did none of the reviewing. Also, these were created in violation of ] which is a blockable or at least sanctionable offense ] (]) 11:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Two wrongs do not make a right - it is much more important that we get the cleanup right than it happens quickly. Whether or not TTH is blocked or otherwise sanctioned is completely irrelevant. While many (maybe even most) of the created portals should be deleted not all of them should be, and this needs human review: see requirement 2 for new CSD criteria at the top of ]. ] (]) 12:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	::: {{ping|Thryduulf|Certes|SmokeyJoe|Legacypac}} Concerning the rate, Legacypac's observation is not accurate. What the edits he is citing do not show, is the method by which the pages were created: they were created in batches, in tabs. Before saving, all the pages/tabs were inspected. For the pages that did not pass muster, such as those that displayed errors (this did not catch all errors, because lua errors can be intermittent or turn up later due to an edit in source material being transcluded), the tabs for those were closed. In a batch of 50, 20 or 30 might survive the cull (though batch sizes varied). Some tabs got additional edits in addition to inspection, to fix errors or remove the sections the errors were in, or further development. After all the tabs in a batch were inspected and the bad ones culled, the remaining ones were saved. That's why the edits' time stamps are so close together. If you look more closely, you'll see the time gap is between the batches rather than the individual page saves. Therefore, ] was not violated. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::He claims he created 500 portals in 500 to 1000 minutes. and is using a script ] If this is not MEATBOT we should refind MEATBOT as meaningless. ] (]) 19:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::: A minute or two per portal of the new design sounds about right. Note that the script doesn't save pages. It puts them into preview mode, so that the editor can review them and work on them further before clicking on save. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 19:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::: {{replyto|Legacypac|The Transhumanist}} As I said above, the method of creation is irrelevant to this proposal, as is what (if any) sanction is appropriate. Likewise discussions of ] don't affect this at all. What matters is only that these pages exist but some of them should not, this proposal needs to be rejected or modified such that it deletes only those that need deleting without also deleting those that do not. ] (]) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Procedural note''' I have advertised this discussion at ] and would encourage others to add links where they think interested editors might see. I think this should remain open for 30 days, as it is quite a significant policy change. ] (]) 09:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' now that the MfDs (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]) are closing with strong consensus around delete, it is clear this is the fastest path to improving the encyclopedia (which is what we are here for, remember?) Any argument that 3,500 more portals have to go through MfD is strictly throwing sand in the gears. It is going to be enough manual labor pulling the links to the deleted portals from all the templates and pages they have been added to. ] (]) 15:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
	**That shows that ''a'' speedy deletion criterion is possibly warranted for some, but several comments on those discussions - including your own at ] - indicate that ''this'' proposed criterion is too broad. ] (]) 15:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
	***You misunderstand my comment at that MfD: I strongly support that portal's deletion and all the others that would be covered by this proposed criterion. ] (]) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
	****You supported the deletion of Portal:Spaghetti because the topic was covered by Portal:Pasta, even though Portal:Pasta would be deleted under this criterion? That's rather disingenuous at best and very significantly and unnecessary disruptive at worst. ] is an example of a portal that should not be deleted without discussion. ] (]) 16:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
	*****Again, you misunderstand my reasoning: I was specifically pointing out to another editor that the existence of ] could NOT be a reason to delete ], since in my opinion ] would likely also be deleted. Instead, I think the current ] provide ample OTHER reasons for deleting both portals (and many, many others, of course). Hope that clarifies. ] (]) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose and keep all'''. ] covers unnecessary portals, and there is no rationale presented other than ] to delete a large proportion of all of them, which were all kept after a RfC in 2018. The next time content policies are created at AN by the cabal of admins, I am retiring from Misplaced Pages. <span style="background-color:#cee">]</span> ] 16:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:{{ping|Wumbolo}} Well, if it came to that, take it to ] first. Given the past history of ] and ] extremism (i.e., ]) cases, I have little doubt that ArbCom would agree to take a case about a gaggle of anti-portal people ] the consensus-formation process by inventing sweeping policy changes out of their butts in a venue few content editors pay attention to and which is clearly out-of-scope for such a decision, even if it somehow had sufficiently broad input (e.g., via ]). I'm skeptical any alleged consensus is going to come out of this discussion, anyway. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' This is a repeat of the Neelix situation. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	**{{replyto|Susmuffin}} The situation has similarities, but the proposed criterion is not comparable. Criterion X1 applied only to redirects created by Neelix that the reviewing administrator reasonably believed would be snow deleted if discussed at RfD (i.e. they had to evaluate each redirect), this criterion would apply to every portal created by TTH in the timeframe without any other conditions and without the need for anyone to even look at anything other than the date of creation. ] (]) 00:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	***Honestly, there are far too many portals to be deleted through the usual channels. However, an quick evaluation would be reasonable, provided we keep the portal system itself. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 00:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::Unlike Neelix who created some reasonable redirects along the way, these autogenerated portals are of uniformly low quality. The community has looked at representive samples across a variety of subject areas at MFD and the community has already deleted 143 of the 143 portals nominated at closed MfDs. The yet to be closed MfDs are headed to increasing that number. No one has suggested any alternative deletion criteria for X3. ] (]) 00:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::That nobody has suggested an alternative is irrelevant - it's not up to those who oppose this proposal to fix it, and those who support it are by-and-large ignoring the objections. The MfDs have been selected as a representative sample of those that, after review, are not worth keeping and have been reviewed by MfD participants. This does not demonstrate that deletion without review is appropriate - indeed quite the opposite. Remember there is no deadline, it is significantly more important that we get it right than we do things quickly. ] (]) 09:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Not particularly similar to the redirect situation that occurred; portals are vastly different in nature and composition from simple redirects. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 03:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose''' as unwarranted and dangerous (and circular reasoning). First, we do not modify CSD without a strong community (not admins' star chamber) consensus that an entire class of material is not just categorically unwanted but so unwanted that it should be deleted on sight without any further consideration. It's our most dangerous policy, and a change like this to it should be an RfC matter at ]. In theory, it could be at ], except there is not yet any establishment of a consensus against these portals, and VPPOL is where that would get hashed out, since it's a project-wide question of content presentation and navigation (and maintenance, and whether tools can permissibly substitute for some manual maintenance, and ...). The cart is ahead of the horse here; we can't have a speedy deletion criterion without already having a deletion criterion to begin with. I strongly agree with SmokeyJoe: {{tq|"{{em|Oppose}} any and all notions of creating new CSD criteria at any drama board. Discussions here are too rushed, too emotive, too reactionary."}} <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 17:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' – ] covers problematic portals just fine. A concerning issue here is that some users herein appear to simply not like portals in general, and so there are several arguments above for mass deletion as per this "I don't like it" rationale. Mass deletion should be a last step, not a first step, and portals should be considered on a case-by-case basis. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	::You created some with the same tools. One or two of your creations are now at MfD which is why you are now engaging against this solution. We will consider each of your creations at MfD. ] (]) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::My !vote here is based upon my view of the matter at hand, and as such, it stands. Period. Regarding my portal creations, so what? You come across as having a penchant for scolding content creators on Misplaced Pages if you don't like the medium that is used. Please consider refraining from doing so, as it is unnecessary, and patronizing. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:{{reply to|Northamerica1000}} I agree - for example, I actually welcome the creation of ] because I think econ should be established as distinct from business as in ]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">] ] <sup>they</sup><sub>them</sub></span> 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - this CSD seems have to no more objective criteria than "shoot unless someone defends it". For this to be justified, they'd have to explain how no-one reacting within 24 hours was sufficient reasoning. As far as the initial proposal included, it didn't contain any acceptable objective criteria for something warranting deletion on quality grounds. '''Far worse''', it didn't contain suitable justification (whether popularity/quality) for these portals to impose such a major hindrance to Misplaced Pages as to warrant a process with as few eyes (per consideration) as CSD. The nominator might have had more luck with a PortalPROD mechanism. ] (]) 23:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	::This CSD exactly meets each criteria for CSD's at the ] page. It is clear. It is easy to decide if the page meets the CSD. We ran 145 of these portals through MfD already and none survived. Numerous editors suggested this CSD in the Village Pump discussion. These mass created portals universally have the same flaws. Therefore this oppose rational is flawed. ] (]) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''': will allow to quickly manage the auto-created portals of zero utility. --] (]) 02:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support enthusiastically'''. Taking all these portals through MFD would be a massive drain on community resources. , so even the time taken to apply a CSD tag and assess it 24 hours later will require more editorial time than TTH took to create them. --] <small>] • (])</small> 07:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' - There are good quality portals that will be excluded, few maybe, but deserve to remain. For example ], <s>]</s> ].] (]) 11:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	**@], maybe those are worth keeping. Or maybe not. But even if they are good, they are not worth the price of the community committing huge amounts of time to individually debating every one of the thousands of useless portals which members of the portal project have spewed out over the last year (often as drive by creations, and which project members have then piled into MFDs to keep.
	::If the Portals Project had exercised discretion so far, then we would be in a very different place. But it's utterly outraegous to ask the community to devote more time to assessing this spam than the Portal Project put into creating them. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Could these portals be marked to be spared?] (]) 13:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::{{replyto|Guilherme Burn}} not according to the proposal as written. The only chance of saving is if an admin chooses to notify and wait 24 hours ''and'' somebody objects within those 24 hours ''and'' someone spots that CSD has been declined previously if it gets renominated. ] (]) 14:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::{{yo|Guilherme Burn}} ] is , and has ]. ] dates from 2005 and wasn't created by TTH or this tag-team, so wouldn't be deleted regardless (although I imagine would be reverted).&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 14:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::{{replyto|Iridescent|BrownHairedGirl}}One portal that does not meet Mfd criteria is enough for me to keep my opinion. ] Although poor visualized is an important and good quality portal and the ] (erroneously I quoted another portal) as well.] (]) 13:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::{{yo|Guilherme Burn}} please can you clarify that statement that {{tq|One portal that does not meet Mfd criteria is enough for me to keep}}.
	:::::::Are you saying that you are willing to personally scrutinise a few thousand drive-by Portals at MfD in order to find the one which should be kept? Or do you want others to do that work?
	:::::::TTH as made it very clear that these portals took on average between one and two minutes each to create ( {{tq|Have you tried creating 500 portals? It is rather repetitious/tedious/time-consuming (from 500 to 1000 minutes)}}). So many multiples of that-one-to-two minutes per portal do you think it is fair to ask the community to spend scrutinisng them? And how much of that time are you prepared to give? --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::{{tq|So many multiples of that-one-to-two minutes per portal do you think it is fair to ask the community to spend scrutinisng them?}}Yes. The community also failed to set criteria for creating portals. What is the difference of ] to ]? For me both should be excluded. If the community not had problems to create a portal for a unique singer, why now have problems with someone who has decided to create portals for lot of singers? And to be honest I do not think so much work like that, Mfd can be executed in blocks excluding several portals at the same time.] (]) 17:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per SmokeyJoe et al. Completely unnecessary to override already existing procedure. ''''']'''''<small>,&nbsp;ed.&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>17:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
	**{{yo|Paine Ellsworth}} the administrative work of trawling through several thousand drive-by-created micro-portals is huge. Cleaning up this flood of portalspam through MFD requires a huge amount of editorial time, vastly more than was involved in creating the spam.
	::If you think that existing procedure is fine, why aren't you devoting large hunks of ''your'' time to doing the cleanup by the laborious procedure you defend? --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	::*Because...? I don't know, I guess I think this whole thing is rather more of a knee-jerk reaction than a brainy, measured response. Sure I've done my share of big, teejus jobs for the project and plan to continue (on my terms). I have a lot of respect for editors like yourself and TTH who've been lifting this project out of the primal soup of its beginnings even longer than I have (I went over ten in January, or was it Feb? whatever) and I'm tired of seeing good, solid editors get reamed for their work and retire, just leave or get banned. Don't think it can't happen to you, because as good as you are, neither you nor the rest of us are immune to the gang-up-on-em mentality that turns justice into vengeance 'round here. Think you should also know if you don't already that I'm about 95 farts Wikignome and 5 parts other, and it takes a lot less for us to think we're being badgered and handled. I voted correctly for me and my perceptions, and I don't expect either of us will change this unwise world one iota if you vote you and yours''!'' WTF ever happened to forgiveness? REspectfully, ''''']'''''<small>,&nbsp;ed.&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>13:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
	:::*{{re|Paine Ellsworth}} Thank you for adding the words that I dared not write in case I was next against the wall. ] (]) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::*{{re|Paine Ellsworth|Certes}} I genuinely don't in any way doubt the good faith of either of you.
	:::::But it seems to me that the unintended effect of what you are both saying is something like "I am not making any effort to assist the cleanup of this mass portalspam, but I will take the effort to oppose measures which reduce the huge burden on those who are actually doing that necessary cleanup work".
	:::::As I say, I do not believe that is what either of you ''intend''. But all I see from either of you is opposition to any restraint on the portalspammer, and opposition to anything which would assist the cleanup. I respect the fine principles from which you two start, but I urge you to consider the effects on the community both of not easing the cleanup burden and of continuing to describe the likes of TTH in positive terms. Look for example at my post in a thread above about the ], and at Iridiscent's observation above that of TTH's previous history of spamming useless pages.
	:::::As to {{tq|lifting this project out of the primal soup of its beginnings}} ... that's an extraordinary way to describe TTH's spamming of hundreds, if not thousands, of useless, unfinished micro-portals. {{smiley|sad}} --] <small>] • (])</small> 22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::I am not making any effort to assist with mass deletions, beyond !voting to delete the clearer cases. We already have enough enthusiasts working in that department. Until recently, I had been adjusting individual portals and enhancing the modules behind them to improve quality, but I slowed down when it became obvious that my contributions in that area will be deleted. ] (]) 00:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::So that's as I feared, @]: members of that WikiProject are leaving it to others to clean up the mess created by the WikiProject and its members.
	::::::: That only reinforces my impression of a collectively irresponsible project, which doesn't restrain or even actively discourage portalspam, doesn't try to identify it, and doesn't assist in its cleanup.
	::::::: That's a marked contrast with well-run projects. --] <small>] • (])</small> 02:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::{{to|BrownHairedGirl|label1=BHG}} not a surprising perspective, possibly a hasty generalization, however that's not your worst move. Your worst move is to consider "mass deletions" of what you deem "portalspam" as {{du|better}} than the "mass creations" of portals. Who's really to say? As an editor mentions below, "...these portals are doing no harm so great that they can be deleted without due process." So maybe you're wrong about those mass deletions that portray some portals as WMDs instead of the harmless windows into ''Misplaced Pages'' that they were meant to be? No matter, at present you are part of the strong throng. If you're right, you're right. But what if you and the strong throng are wrong? May things continue to go well with you''!'' ''''']'''''<small>,&nbsp;ed.&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>07:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Support''' and also apply it to those created by Northamerica1000, who has made such useless portals as ] and ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	**{{replyto|Reywas92}} ] has created only 70 pages in the portal namespace (excluding redirects) in the relevant timeperiod. In no conceivable scenario does that justify a speedy deletion criterion. ] (]) 11:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per F&K (whatever course of action that will result in every portal created in this manner being deleted with the minimal of time and effort required) and SN (nuke from orbit). I'll be honest I don't know enough to know whether it should be a X3 or a P2 or a single MfD list with 4,500 entries... but it should '''not''' need to involve manually tagging pages that were created by a bot or otherwise spending any real time figuring out which should be kept and which should not be kept. Delete them all. If editors feel like this portal or that portal should be kept, let them make the case for undeletion afterwards which can be examined on a case-by-case basis. (If that process is followed, it goes without saying that the portal creator should be banned from making any such undeletion requests.) ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 17:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:How are we supposed to work out what is worth undeleting, short of downloading all portals in advance lest they be deleted? ] (])
	*::If an editor is not aware of a portal existing, then that editor shouldn't be asking for it to be kept. If there are particular portals that editors know they want saved, then they should have an opportunity to request that it be saved. But there should be no one-by-one examination of thousands and thousands of portals created by one user using semi-automatic methods. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:Kill them all and let God sort them out is very much ''not'' the way Misplaced Pages works and is very much ''not'' the way it should work. Why should the review be restricted to administrators (as your proposal would require)? Why is it preferable to significantly harm the encyclopaedia by deleting good portals than to do the job properly and delete only those that actually need deleting (which are doing significantly less harm by existing than deleting good ones would cause)? ] (]) 18:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::So let me create several thousand pages semi-automatically, and then I'll put it to you to go through them one by one and tell me which should be deleted and why? I don't think that's how it should work. It should work in reverse. The default should be delete them all, with some process for allowing people to request that particular portals not be deleted. BTW, when I say "all portals" I mean all portals covered by this proposal, not all portals that exist on Misplaced Pages. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:::If an editor created several thousand pages semi-automatically, the correct sequence of events is to analyse a representative sample to determine whether ''consensus'' is that they are (a) all good, (b) mostly good, (c) all bad, (d) mostly bad, or (e) a mixture. If (a) then no action is necessary, if (b) then individual deletion nominations are the correct response. If (c) then a CSD criterion to remove all of them is appropriate, if (d) or (e) then a CSD affectingly only the bad ones should be explored. In this the situation is somewhere between (d) and (e) depending on your point of view, but this proposal is treating them as (c). As I've said several times, I'm not opposed to a criterion proposed (in the right place) that caught only the bad ones and allowed for objections - that is not this proposal. This situation is frequently compared to Neelix, but the proposal is very different - this one: All pages created between Time A and Time B, unless anyone objects to the optional tagging within 24 hours. Neelix: All pages created between Time A and Time B that would be snow deleted if nominated at RfD, retargetting would not lead to a useful redirect and no other editor has materially edited the redirect. Do you now understand the fundamental difference? Also remember that pages can be tagged by bot. ] (]) 20:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::::Yes. We also need to clarify one important detail of the proposal: would an editor be required to look at the portal before applying CSD, or is there an assumption that everything created by this editor in that time period is automatically rubbish and does not deserve assessment? ] (]) 22:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:::::If a human being didn't spend a lot of time making a page, then human beings should not spend much time deciding whether to keep it. I put it to you again: suppose tomorrow I create 5,000 new pages and ask you to go through them and decide which to keep and which to delete. That would be insane; this is a website of volunteers; my doing such a thing would be disruptive. It would make work for others. ''Nobody'' reading this thinks it would be a good idea for me to do such a thing. Yet this is what is essentially being asked of us. Insofar as I have a !vote, I !vote no. Delete them all. They are all bad. Any that are good can be recreated as easily as they were created in the first place. Letting people flag keepers in one way or another is a perfectly reasonable way to prevent the baby from being thrown out with the bathwater. But yes, my starting point is that all of them should be deleted because none of them should have been made in the first place, and they do not have content value. Some portals are the product of careful creation and extensive work, but not 5,000 or however-many automatically created by one editor. The quantum portal idea is a much better idea, anyway. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 02:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::::::I've alreadyanswered this immediately above, but as you apparently don't like the answer I'll respond again. If you create 5000 new pages in good faith (which TTH did), then the correct response is for others to go through and look at a representative sample, then gain a consensus about whether they are all bad, mostly bad, a mixture, mostly good or all good. This has been done with TTH's portals and while you may think they are all bad that is not the consensus view, especially as others have taken over some and either have improved them or are working on improving them. This means that it is important that only the bad ones are deleted meaning any proposal (such as this one) to delete all of them is overbroad and needs to be opposed. ] (]) 10:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::::::::This statement by Thryduulf is incorrect on many levels. Who has taken over and improved any of his creations? Where is the concensus view that they are not all bad when so far zero of his creations have been kept at MfDs. Where is the proof any of this was in good faith when he admits several sections down that no one (including him) has followed ] ] (]) 10:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:::::::::Are you even reading the comments made by those who disagree with you because I'm not seeing evidence of it, especially when it comes to the MfDs (to reiterate, a reviewed selection of the worst pages being deleted by consensus but not unanimously in all cases does not provide evidence of the need for deletion of all of them without possibility of review). ] (]) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:::::::{{u|Thryduulf}}, so I spend less than 1 minute per page creating 5,000 pages; ''you'' and others spend–what, an hour, cumulatively, at least?–per page to analyze it, discuss it, vote it, close it, and delete it. I spend 5,000 minutes; the community spends 5,000 hours. With all due respect I am flabbergasted to hear such a high-ranked Wikipedian express the view that this is OK or preferred. Even with your representative sample approach, say it's 100 portals that are looked at, that's still 100 hours of labor forced upon volunteers. In my opinion, no one should be allowed to make 5,000 pages without going through something like a BAG process to seek community approval. There was once a time, years ago, when it made sense to, for example, automatically create a stub for every known city and town in the world. I believe that time has long since passed; there are not 5,000 pages that can be created automatically that we need to have that we do not already have (IMO). And as for consensus, if they're not being kept at MfD, the consensus is clear. Those portals that people maintain manually are the same ones that can be flagged as exceptions to a mass-deletion. So I feel like we're on the same page about consensus, but I'm saying the consensus to keep a particular portal can be effectuated by allowing people to flag them as exceptions to mass deletion, whereas you seem to be suggesting: let's get together and spend an hour per portal to decide if it should be kept, even though nobody spent anywhere near that time creating it in the first place. If that's where we are, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I fundamentally don't believe these portals are worth a one-by-one analysis, and I believe the representative sample approach you advocate has been done and has led to the conclusion that these are worth mass deleting with exceptions. I guess that's for a closer to make the ultimate decision about, but for my part, from ''uninvolved'' editors, I'm seeing a lot more support than oppose for mass deletion. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::::::::{{replyto|Levivich}} If you're just going to ignore all the explanations I give in response to you (twice) and all the explanations elsewhere from me and others about why a reviewed selection of the worst being deleted (and not unanimously in all cases) is not evidence of the need for all of them to be deleted without possibility of review by others then it is clear we will never agree. Fortunately, per ], nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to do - including you - and it's really disappointing that someone as experienced as you feels the need to ''prevent'' that work being done by others just because you don't want to. Perhaps between now and the time this is closed those in support of this overbroad proposal will actually choose to address the points in opposition but unless they do the only possible outcomes are no consensus or consensus against. ] (]) 16:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:::::::::{{u|Thryduulf}}, I heard you say: pick a representative sample and decide if they're all bad, some bad, etc. As I understand it, a representative sample has been sent to MfD with consensus to delete almost all of them, if not all of them (I'm not sure if lists I've seen are complete). Then you say that just because the sample is all-delete doesn't mean the whole category is all-delete. I infer you think the sample is not well-chosen? By TTH's admission there are like 4,500–5,000 portals, and a tiny tiny percentage of those are being manually maintained–like less than 5%. Are we on the same page about the facts so far? If so, where do you see consensus other than "delete 95% of these things"? Why can't we tag the 100 that are manually maintained and delete the remaining 4,500? I am reading what you're writing, but I am not understanding it. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 16:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''': these portals are easy to create semi-automatedly and contain no information not found in articles so we're not losing any information from Misplaced Pages, which sets this apart from most other CSD criteria. An alternative proposal I would support is to expand the remit of P2 to apply to any portals with fewer than one-hundred pages under their scope (or alternatively, fewer than one-hundred notable topics if there is evidence that the portal creators and users are planning to create such topics as articles). If a topic doesn't have 100 pages on it at the bare minimum, there's absolutely no reason to focus a portal around it. Even for portals covering tens of thousands of articles, reader interest is very, very low and the current semi-automated busywork is not serving the readers. <span class="nowrap">— ''']''' (he/him) <sub>]</sub></span> 19:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	**{{replyto|Biorv}} a proposal for expansion of speedy deletion criterion P2 is being discussed currently at ] (])
	*'''Support with exceptions'''. I support the speedy deletion of all portals auto-created in recent months as it seems excessive and unnecessary. However, those few portals which are manually maintained in good faith should be kept. Down the line we need to take another look at a notability threshold to keep a lid on portalmania. ] (]) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	**If you believe there should be exceptions for portals maintained in good faith (and I agree there should be), then you should be opposing this proposal in favour of an alternative one that allows for that. ] (]) 22:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::X3 only covers the mass created automated portals started by TTH so already excludes the type of portal ] wants to exclude. Thryduulf is muddying the facts. ] (]) 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' because a) on procedural grounds this shouldn't be discussed at the AN "closed shop" and b) because these portals are doing no harm so great that they can be deleted without due process. It is not TTH's fault that the guidelines for portal creation are permissive. ] (]) 02:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': <s>I have already voted here but</s> I just wanted to provide an example of how much thought was going into the creation of these portals. ] was created by TTH on Aug 15 2018 and in classified as "Complete" despite having 4 selected images. An identical portal was created at ] by TTH on Nov 24 and is classified as "Substantial" (the portalspace equivalent of B-class). One wonders, which portal is of better quality, how was this determined, and how was this oversight not caught? —] (]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 13:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''': Criteria are supposed to be '''uncontestable''' - almost all pages could be deleted under this criterion, according to consensus. Looking at the , I see a lot of frivolous ones, but I also see ], ], ], and ], all of which represent subjects with well-populated categories. And I could add at least as many that are debatable. If TTH, now under a topic ban, were to create more portals, they could be speedy deleted under ]. But the pages considered here were created before the ban, so they should stand or fall on their own merits. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">](])</span> 06:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	**{{replyto|RockMagnetist}} I think you mean ] (Creations by banned or blocked users) rather than ] (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). ] (]) 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	***] cannot be used here. The locus of G5 revolves around obliterating the edits of LTA's and sockpupeters and for ban-evasion in a generalized scope.&nbsp;<b style="font-family:monospace;"><< ] <sup>(])</sup></b> 15:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	****G5 can be used to delete pages created in violation of a topic ban, if deletion is the best course of action. I would never use G5 on a page that was a borderline violation, but that's not relevant here (I can't think of any page creation that would be anything other than clear-cut one way or the other). It's all theoretical though as TTH hasn't created any pages in violation of his ban and I think it unlikely they will. ] (]) 15:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	****{{Reply to|FR30799386|Thryduulf}} My point in mentioning G4 (oops - G5!) was that it is a more appropriate standard for deleting pages based on who created them. The current proposal is too broad. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:grey;">](])</span> 16:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I have gone over many of the portals. It seems that there are a mix of topics which are mainstream and some which should not have been created. This isn't a white or a black issue, the wheat must be carefully separated from the chaff.&nbsp;<b style="font-family:monospace;"><< ] <sup>(])</sup></b> 12:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*FR, is there some issue with deleting them without prejudice to re-creating existing ones? These were basically made by a bot in what amounts to a single spasm, so deleting them all could be seen as a BRD reversion. The next step would be to let uninvolved editors recreate any worth keeping. Yes, that might take a while. There is no deadline and if some potentially useful portals have gone uncreated up til now, it's fine if they stay absent a little longer. ] (]) 04:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - the proposal assumes that none of the portals should have been created, and that is an incorrect assumption. Certainly the are some that perhaps should not exist, but equally there are some that definitely should, and some that need a bit of discussion to determine consensus. Speedy deletion is not the way to resolve this. ]] 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	**No, the proposal assumes (correctly) that 95% should never have been created, and that the tiny amount of time spent on those few that might be worth keeping doesn't justify the hours needed to discuss them all at MfD. The ones that get speedy deleted and would be an acceptable portal anyway can easily be recreated if someone really wants them. No effort has gone into creating these portals (usually not even the effort of checking if the result was errorfree, never mind informative or not a duplicate of existing portals), so demanding a week-long discussion for all of them because sometimes the mindless effort created an acceptable result is putting the cart before the horse. ] (]) 08:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''—CSD is for stuff where there's zero grey area. At best, this should be a specialized PROD. ] ]] 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	====Arbitrary break (CSD criterion X3)====
	*'''Oppose''' Although the vast majority may not be needed: that does not mean they should just be deleted (without oversight or consensus). The arguments ''for'' this critera seem to be centered around: 'so little work was put into them, therefore we shouldn't need to put in any work to fix it'. Why not just let them sit there then? Is there a deadline? Seeing as portals ''themselves'' are an auxiliary aide to our main focus (of writing articles) this seems unnecessary. I'm surprised that this is (at least) the second time that a ] has been proposed for the cSd, I guess times have changed a bit. It seems uncollegial to respond to opposers by saying: "then you better help out with all the MfD's'. I agree with the points made by SMcCandlish and RockMagnetist among others. ]<sup> ]</sup> 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	**"Why not just let them sit there then"? Have you actually looked at the pure drivel many of these portals are? Most of these portals are not an "auxiliary aid", they are random shit, bot generated without bot permission but without actual human oversight. Sending ''any'' reader to such total shit is a disgrace. The below image is how one of these portals looks ''right now'', after it has existed for 7 months and after this discussion highlighting many problems has run for a month. Time spent discussing these (time spent looking at these) is time wasted. Any portal which people think is necessary after all can be recreated (in a much better fashion) afterwards, the speedy deletion of these doesn't restrict this. But keeping the shit an editor mass produced because their may be some less shitty pages included is doing a disservice to the people who actually wander to these portals and can only stare in dsbelief at what we show them. "'Calamba, officially the ', (Tagalog: Lungsod ng Calamba), or known simply as Calamba City is a class ] in the province of , . According to the ?, it has a population of people. " ] (]) 09:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::{{small|have you looked at all the shit that sits in the mainspace (some of it for ''years'')? There are like 182,000 unreferenced articles live right now, but this is the hill we're choosing to die on? ]<sup> ]</sup> 21:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)}}
	{{collapse-top|Large in-line image}}
	]
	{{collapse-bottom}}
	:::Thank you for identifying a problem with a small number of Philippines portals where the lead contains {{tl|PH wikidata}}, a technique designed for use in infoboxes. I'll pass your helpful comments on to the relevant WikiProject. ] (]) 11:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::No, please pass my comment on to all people supporting these portals, but not bothering to actually look at what they propose or defend. Creating and supporting pages with such blatant problems is basically the same as vandalism. There are e.g. also quite a few portals which confront their readers with the below "selected article" (as the default selected article, not even when scrolling deeper). Or with the same image two or three times. Or... The list of problems with these portals is near endless (selected categories only consisting of one redlink? Sure...). The fact that adding a category can cause a page to look completely different and generate different errors (like in the example above) should be a major indicator that this system, used on thousands of pages, is not as foolproof and low in maintenance as is being claimed. ] (]) 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{collapse-top|Large in-line image}}
	]
	{{collapse-bottom}}
	:::::Thank you for your continued help in identifying portal issues. I have found and fixed three pages which had repeated "Read more" links. If you could be kind enough to reveal which portal you have depicted as "PortalShit2.png", we may also be able to fix that case and any similar ones. ] (]) 12:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::There are two very simple solutions: either support X3, and all these portals are instantly fixed. Or actually take a look at all these low maintenance, automatic portals of the future, find the many issues, and fix them. Which still won't solve the problem that many of them are utterly ''pointless'', mindless creations of course. I've noted more than enough problems with these portals to wholeheartedly support speedy deletion, since spending any time "corecting" a portal like the Calamba one is a waste of time (as it should be deleted anyway, speedy or not). ] (]) 12:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::{{replyto|Fram}} You are clearly not understanding the opposition to this proposal. It is not about supporting the inclusion of poor content, it is about opposing a speedy deletion criterion that fails the ] and would delete content that should not be deleted in addition to content that should. ] (]) 13:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::No, I often have trouyble understanding burocratic opposition which creates tons of extra work for very little actual benefit. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that this actually fails the four criteria: it is objective and nonredundant (I guess we all agree on these two?), it is frequent (in the sense that having 3K portals at MfD is quite a heavy load, it's not just one or two pages), so we are left with "Uncontestable", which doesn't mean that as soon ass someone opposes it, it becomes contested, but that "almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus.". Looking at this discussion and the MfDs, I believe this to be true. Opposing this new CSD rule "because it is contested" is circular reasoning, as you are then basically saying "it is contested because it is contested", which is obviously not a valid argument. Having a significant number of portals which fall under the X3 but should not be deleted (which doesn't equal "should never exist", only "should not exist in the current form or any older form in the page history") would be a good argument, but I haven't seen any indication of such. ] (]) 13:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ec}} Frequent is not an issue (it wouldn't be as a permanent criteria, but as a temporary one it's fine), non-redundant is not an issue for most (although a few might be caught by P2 that's not a significant proportion so not a probelm). This proposal (unlike the ones being discussed at ]) is objective as written (created by a single user within a defined time period). Uncontestable however very much is, the requirement is "It must be the case that almost all pages that could be deleted using the rule, should be deleted, according to consensus. CSD criteria should cover only situations where there is a strong precedent for deletion. Remember that a rule may be used in a way you don't expect, unless you word it carefully." It is very clear from this discussion and others around these portals that not all of them ''should'' be deleted - several have received strong objections to deletion at MfD, some are argued to be kept and others merged. "it is contested because it is contested" is exactly the point of this requirement - nobody argues in good faith against deleting copyright violations, patent nonsense, recreations, or specific types of articles that don't assert importance. There is consensus that were these to be discussed they would be unanimously deleted every time. There is no such consensus about these portals. Some, perhaps most, should be deleted but not all of them. ] (]) 15:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::I am pleased to report that a recent module change should eliminate the problem where articles too short to be worth featuring occasionally appear as "Read more... Read more...". This should fix the mystery portal depicted above next time it is purged. ] (]) 11:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::] your opposition to X3 is baffling. You oppose it basically because some topics where Portals were mass created using automated tools against policy may warrant portals. But none of these pages have any original content to preserve. They are mindless spam poorly repackaging existing content. Kind of a poor Misplaced Pages mirror effort. MFDing these has proven they are unwelcome - yet you want to force us to spend a week debating pages that the creator spent seconds to create without even checking for compliance against their own criteria or for major errors? If these deletions were actually controversial (the only one of the 4 CSD criteria you say is not followed) we would expect a significant number of the MfDs to close Keep. We might expect the creator to defend and explain, but instead the creator freely admits he ignored ]. Seriously makes me doubt your competence and judgement. Admins should show better judgement then this. ] (]) 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::{{replyto|Legacypac}} Assuming you mean X3, then I have explained every single one of my reasons several times and you have either not listened or not understood on every single one of those occasions so I Will not waste even more of my time explaining them again. ] (]) 17:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Second {{u|Legacypac}}. Additionally, part of what I meant by "some might be worth keeping" is that they can be deleted, but if any were actually worthy they could be recreated, perhaps with more care and effort than this. ]]] 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	:* It seems like a lot of what is objected to can be covered by a judicious use of P2, G1, and A3 (via P1) but there's probably something I'm missing. {{yo|Fram}}, I'm not here to support bad content, but bad policy (and precedent) can be far more harmful to the project than 'repackaged nonsense' existing for a bit longer than some people want it to. This would have the side effect of saving the portals worth saving. ]<sup> ]</sup> 22:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' let's discuss deletion based on content and merit of individual portals. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, this is not how we do things here. You're proposing deletion of many very good portals here. ] ] 15:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Please identify 35 out of the 3500 (1%) that are "very good portals" so we can run them through MFD to test your statement. Also there is no baby - there is no original content at all. No work done by humans is lost with X3 deletions because they were created using an automated script that was used without BAG approval to repackage existing content. Therefore ] is not an issue. If someone started creating thousands of articles called "Foo lite" that just copied Foo mindlessly we would CSD them without debate. These are just in another mainspace but they are really Foo lite. ] (]) 17:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Except that's not comparable at all. The ''point'' of portals (which the community has repeatedly endorsed) is to duplicate article content and provide links to related content - which is exactly what these portals are doing. They might be doing it poorly in many cases, but that's qualitatively different to one article duplicating another. ] (]) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::Wouldn't it be faster to delete them all and then recreate the ones that need recreating, rather than go through them one by one to see which to keep? Because the number of "keeps" is like 5% or 10% and not 50%? (It would have to be 50% to be equal time between the two approaches.) If you're not convinced that it's 5-10% keep and not 50% keep, what sort of representative sampling process can we engage in to test the theory? ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 19:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::Yes it would be faster, but ] so it is very significantly more important to get it right than it is to do it quickly. Deleting something that doesn't need deleting is one of the most harmful things that an administrator can do - and speedily deleting it is an order of magnitude more so. As only administrators can see pages once they have been deleted, and doing so is much harder, deleting it first makes the job of finding the good portals very significantly harder. ] (]) 21:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Timing matters because this issue is being discussed in several forums at once. If the first debate to close decides to delete, the portals may be gone by the time another discussion reaches a consensus to keep them. ] (]) 21:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''I listed The Transhumanist's portal creations, latest first, and examined the top entry on each page, i.e. every 100th portal.
	{{cot|Assessment of a sample of TTH's recent creations}}
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 50 excerpts with more links at the bottom. Four other images, plus plenty more in the 50 leads. Manual input: refining the search criteria for Did You Know and In the News (DYK+ITN).
	#] – Lua error: No images found. (To be fair, there may have been images before a recently requested module change to suppress images without captions.) 13 excerpts. No manual input: the wikitext matches that generated by {{tl|bpsp6}}.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 11 excerpts; one other image. Manual input: refining DYK+ITN.
	#] – decent but minimal portal with no obvious errors. 30 excerpts; four other images. Several manual improvements.
	#] – potentially good portal but with a couple of display errors which look fixable. 30 excerpts; 20 other images. Manual input: routine maintenance, probably of a routine technical nature rather than creative.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; six other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ other excerpts; six images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 36 excerpts; 17 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; no image section. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 15 excerpts; six other images. Manual input: refining DYK+ITN.
	#] – This portal has display errors which make it hard to evaluate properly. It's had plenty of manual input, possibly in attempts to fix it.
	#] – decent appearance; <strike>one minor display error which looks fixable.</strike><small>(fixed)</small> 50 excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 19 excerpts; four other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 14 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; <strike>one minor display error which looks fixable.</strike><small>(fixed)</small> 40+ excerpts; 30+ other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 20 excerpts; 18 other images. Some manual improvements.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 40+ excerpts; 13 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 11 excerpts; 16 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; <strike>one minor display error which looks fixable;</strike><small>(fixed)</small> narrow scope. 11 excerpts; 7 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 9 excerpts; one other image. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 50 excerpts; five other images. Some manual improvements. Currently at ] with the rationale that woodpeckers are not a family.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 11 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; three other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 18 excerpts; eight other images. Routine maintenance. Currently at ] with the rationale that ] contains only two articles.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 10 excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; two other images (everything else is non-free). Some manual improvements.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 16 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 16 excerpts; 34 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 30+ excerpts; two other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40 excerpts; seven other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – generally decent appearance <strike>but several minor display errors;</strike><small>(fixed)</small> narrow scope. 50 excerpts; 17 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 15 excerpts; 28 other images. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors. 15 excerpts; 47 other images. Some manual improvements. Too few excerpts but potentially good.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. Four excerpts; 27 other images. Some manual improvements.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors but a narrow scope. 40+ excerpts; 20 other images but with a couple of repeats. Routine maintenance.
	#] – decent appearance; no obvious errors. Nine excerpts; 50+ other images. Extensive manual improvements. Too few excerpts but potentially good.
	{{cob}}
	:It appears that most of the portals have a narrow scope and should go but a significant minority are either already of a good enough standard to keep or show sufficient potential to merit further attention. This impression is based not on cherry-picking but on a random sample. ] (]) 21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Thank you for this, this is a very good illustration of why this proposal is too broad - it will delete portals that clearly should not be deleted, and others that may or may not need to be deleted (e.g. I've !voted to merge several of the portals about universities). ] (]) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Query''' Why don't we have a CSD for pages created by unauthorized scripts or bots? ] exists for a reason right? (And this seems to be a good example of it). ]<sup> ]</sup> 21:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	**{{replyto|Crazynas}} because not all of them should be deleted, as ] analysis immediately above demonstrates perfectly. ] (]) 21:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::: {{yo|Thryduulf}} You're missing my point. Just like we have a policy that banned users are to be reverted ''in all cases'' not because they might not make good edits (to game the system or not) but because they are a disruption to the community; so we should have a policy that pages created (or edited I suppose) by unauthorized bots are inherently not welcome, ''because'' of the potential for disruption ''regardless of their merit'' (by disruption I'm talking about this AN thread as much as the pages themselves). This is the whole reason we have a group dedicated to overseeing and helping with bots right? ]<sup> ]</sup> 22:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::No bots were involved. The pages were created using a template. One of your last page creations was a user talk page, where you welcomed a new editor using Twinkle. You did a very professional job, by applying a template which introduces the new editor with the sort of carefully considered and neatly arranged prose that we don't have time to write every time a new contributor appears. Using a template is not a valid rationale for mass deletions. ] (]) 22:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::: Curious, what template did you use? I guess the difference I see is the twinkle is highly curated and subject to extensive review (as are the templates it calls). If all these pages were manually created, then what happened in the example of (what to me looks pretty much like G1) that Fram posted above? Why didn't the human that pressed the button take responsibility for that (so to speak) pile of rubbish? To clarify, ''Bot'' here covers scripts, AWB (which is 'manual'), java implementations etc. In short: "Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Misplaced Pages edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work." The policy '''explicitly''' references mass page creation as being under the purview of BAG ]. ]<sup> ]</sup> 22:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::I haven't used any of these templates myself but recent portals have been created by variants on {{tl|Basic portal start page}}. The numbered versions such as {{tl|bpsp6}} cater for portal-specific conditions such as there being no DYKs to feature. ] (]) 23:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::: {{replyto|Crazynas}} I was simply answering your question about why we do not speedy delete every page created by an unauthorised bot, etc - simply because not every page created by such means should be deleted. You are also mistaken about banned users - they ''may'' be reverted but they are not required to be. Certes analysis shows that some of the portals created by the script have been improved since, sometimes significantly. ] (]) 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::: {{yo|Thryduulf}} Sure, and this is tangential to the proposal here (which I'm still opposing, if you noticed). In any case the thought I'm having wouldn't be applied ex post facto but it ''would'' make it explicitly clear that mass creation of pages by automated or semi-automated means without prior approval is disruptive. ]<sup> ]</sup> 23:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. The problem with many of these recently created template-based portals is that it is difficult or impossible to improve them. I've edited portals for over a decade but cannot work out how to change the portal code to include or exclude a particular article or image. (For articles I believe one has to change the template or mark the article as stub to exclude it; for images I believe it just harvests those from the main topic article.) Thus they are not drafts that could be further improved, they are static uneditable entities for which the only solution is to start from scratch. There is no thought to be preserved that is not equally present in the list of articles in the template/images in the root article. ] <small>(])</small> 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
	*The key issue is that traditionally, portals are viewed as entry points to broad topic areas. However a page generated by the helper templates that draw content from an underlying navigation box is more akin to a ] experience: it provides an X-ray view into the navigation box. It's not clear this is the experience the community wants to provide for readers visiting something labelled a portal. ] (]) 20:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
	* the automated scripts are so easy to fool. Even if everything looks perfect when the portal is set up, as soon as someone adds an new link to a nav box (that may make sense in the nav box but not for the portal), adds an image to a page, or creates a DYK completely unrelated to the topic which includes the five letters "horse" within someone's name behind a pipe, you get random inappropriate stuff in an automated portal. The editor adjusting the nav box, adding a picture without a caption per ] or creating the DYK has no idea the portal is being busted. There is no edit to the portal to review so watch listing the portal does not help. You have to manually review the portal display regularly. That is before looking at lua errors. Autogenerated content is a bad idea. Forcing other editors to review your auto generated crap is wrong. Ignoring the guidelines because they are "outdated" and leaving 4500 pages that need to be checked and discussed against the guidelines by other editors is wrong. The only reasonable solution is to nuke these from orbit. Then if someone willing to follow the guidelines and use intellgently designed and applied tools want to recreate some titles, that is fine. ] (]) 21:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
	**Everything you say before "The only reasonable solution..." may be true but is irrelevant to this proposal as written. "Nuking them from orbit" is not the only reasonable solution, as fixing the issues so that the portals don't break is also reasonable. As is not deleting the ones that have been fixed so that the errors you talk about don't occur. ] (]) 00:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	**:{{tq2|Portal creation&nbsp;... is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.|source=]}} Someone spent less than 50 seconds creating the page; requiring editors to spend more time than that to delete it has an extortionate effect, even though there's a good faith intent. If we don't nuke from orbit, then those who want these automatically-created portals deleted will be forced to spend far, far more than 50 seconds per portal discussing them one by one (or ten by ten, or one hundred by one hundred, it'll still be a lot of time). 50 seconds "taken up by manual activities" is how we end up with a ] that includes ] as one of the selected articles–probably not the best selection–but that's been there for five months now. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 03:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	***:Two wrongs do not make a right and there is no deadline. The only reason for deleting them all you seem to have is that you don't like that these portals were created so quickly, and that some of them are bad. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion and some of them are bad. However that does not equate to a reason to delete all of them without checking whether they are good or bad. If you have problems with specific portals then they should be fixed and/or nominated for deletion, as I see you have done in this case, but just because X is bad doesn't mean that the entire set of pages of which is a part should be speedily deleted. ] (]) 09:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	****:"There is no deadline" is a complete non-argument. There is no deadline to ''have'' these portals either. Knowingly advocating for keeping problematic portals around until someone not only notices it but also decides to MfD it is exposing readers to shitty, thoughtless reproductions of content for no actual benefit (the benefits" of these portals are addressed dequately by the navigation templates they are based on) and with the risk of showing them all kinds of errors which gives a very poor impression. Luckily very few people get actually exposed to these pages, but this also means that the very hypothetical damage deleting some of these pages would do is extremely minimal. ] (]) 10:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	*****:There was indeed no deadline for their creation, now they have been created that is irrelevant. If we follow your logic though we should delete every article and then just recreate the ones that admins vet as meeting an undefined standard. Yes, deleting more slowly does increase the risk that some readers will see errors, but thtat's exactly what happens in every other namespace without a problem. ] (]) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	******:No, that's not my logic. Your use of "no deadline" when it suits you, and the dismissal when it doesn't, is quite clear though. Deleting articles is losing content, deleting these auto-portals is losing nothing. Furthermore, we have in the past speedy deleted large groups of articles by one or two creators once it became clear that too many contained errors. This has been done with thousands of articles by Dr. Blofeld, with thousands by Jaguar, and with thousands by Sander v. Ginkel (the last ones moved to draft and then deleted afterwards). Once we know that with one group of creations by one editor, there are many problems, we had no qualms in the past to speedy delete them. That didn't mean that they can't be recreated, or that admins will first vet them, no idea where you get those ideas. Please don't make a caricature of what I support here, and please don't make absolute statements which don't match reality. ] (]) 17:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' 1) Let's not create precedents where we hand single admins editorial control, admins may well be great editors (some better than others), but let's keep editorial control as much as possible only with all editors. 2) The formulation of this supposed CSD criteria seems to be a ] against a single user. (As an aside, different perspective: there are perhaps millions of pages in article space that are "poor", so portal space is bound to have them, too - just work through it -- and if we come-up with new forward looking policies and guidelines for all portals (or mass creations) consistent as possible with the 5 P, all the better). ] (]) 17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - per Fish & Karate. ] - ] 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. I feel there are much better ways of handling the situation, including but not limited to: expanding P2, Portal PROD, and even MFD. This is too broad of a sword that doesn't even cut in the right places since it's only limited to one user in a given time frame. --] <sup>(])</sup> 16:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	*Thought I had voted here but I guess I hadn’t. Regardless, my thinking on this has changed because of Certes’ in-depth analysis of TTH’s portal creations. Anyway: '''Oppose'''. The mass creation of portals is something that should be dealt with preferably quickly, but this proposal as written is not the right way to do it. Sure, there are a lot of crappy portals that could be deleted fairly uncontroversially, but there are also a lot of good portals as well as edge cases that deserve more community discussion on whether they should be deleted, or at least a longer waiting period so users may object. —] (] &#124; ]) 12:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' for now. I still hope that the proposal might become limited to portals looked at and determined to be poor by some objective criteria, which I could support, but that hasn't yet happened. Speedy ''ad hominem'' deletion regardless of subsequent tuning, current quality or even potential for future improvement is likely to throw too many babies out with the bathwater. ] (]) 12:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Regretfully support''': as an editor I dislike the idea of creations made by certain users being deleted ''en masse'' but, quite frankly, MfD cannot cope with the influx at the moment. Hell, I've got a decent laptop and MfD is getting so big scrolling down causes a bit of lag. '''<span style="font-family: Arial">] ]</span>''' 20:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	===Proposal 5: Shut down or reform ]===
	I know, me proposing shutting down a WikiProject I'm in? What am I thinking?
	Well, I mainly joined to make sure things would go smoothly after that RfC to delete all portals - clearly it has not. As thus, I think a solution (among the others) would be to '''shut down the WikiProject responsible for many of the bad portal creations'''. Right now it appears all its doing is creating new portals, not maintaining or improving them - which is what a WikiProject is supposed to do.
	However, a less extreme solution would be to '''reform the project''' to actually maintain and improve the portals it creates, and creates portals sparingly. I'm fairly certain a task force making sure portals meet standards would be beneficial to the issue, and also making it clear that not everything needs a portal.
	I'm going for the latter option to reform - however, I'm going to leave the shutdown option up in the air in case people find good reason for it to be considered.
	'''Addendum 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)''' - Since I forgot to clarify ({{selftrout}}) here's two examples of reforms I could see being useful:
	*A quality scale for portals, like we use for articles - this could help with knowing which portals are good and which ones need improvement
	*Dividing the Project into task forces to make sure necessary tasks for the maintenance of portals are completed, as right now they clearly are not
	:*Sub-reform for this would be to make a task force that deletes bad portals that don't meet quality standards and are not needed
	Hopefully this can help clarify this proposal somewhat - if none of these can be done reasonably (which I doubt they can't) the shutdown option should be considered.
	<span style="color:#FFB3FF;">Kirbanzo</span> <sup>(] - ] - ])</sup> 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	====Survey on sub-proposal to shut down WikiProject Portals====
	{{atop		{{atop
			| result = Asked and answered. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	| status =
	| result = There is a strong ] consensus against shutting down WikiProject Portals. (involved close) —] (] &#124; ]) 15:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC) {{nac}}
	}}		}}
	*'''Neutral''' as per above. <span style="color:#FFB3FF;">Kirbanzo</span> <sup>(] - ] - ])</sup> 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose''' firstly this is the wrong forum, secondly there is nothing in the nomination that explains why this is needed, or how it will result in an improvement to the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 01:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose'''. ] (]) 01:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''': might as well. --] (]) 02:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose'''. There is consensus to keep the portal system but it has many faults, so a focus for improving it seems sensible. ] (]) 14:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Strong oppose'''. Not necessary and not the best way to fix Misplaced Pages’s portals. —] (] &#124; ]) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' – Would amount to ]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 01:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' For the same reasons. — AfroThundr <sup>(] · ] · ])</sup> 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' For the same reasons. ] (]) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Incompetent project that doesn't want to deal with the crud their members create. ] (]) 18:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	** Invalid rationale. See ]. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as {{em|ad hominem}} vindictiveness. The only rationale for deleting such a project would be a proper community-wide decision to eliminate all portals. This is not the venue for that; ] is. And this is not the venue for deletion of a wikiproject; ] is. ], most especially in deletion discussions and related matters, because damned near zero people are going to look for such discussions in an admins' "house organ" page like this. Hardly any non-admins watchlist this page or pay any attention at all to what is said here. It is not intended to be a venue for community-wide concerns in the first place, and even with belated addition to ], discussing such matters here is a special kind of forum shopping, namely an attempt to appeal to a small cadre of specialist editors whose concerns about maintenance (and cop-like role of "going after" people for alleged behavioral flaws, often with little oversight, especially compared to ] process) will colour everything they do and say about the matter. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Widely misleading arguments. This is a widely advertised and widely participated discussion. It came from a VPR discussion, linked from the very beginning. There are far more non-Admins than Admins involved here. Try to stick to facts. ] (]) 23:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' opposed to portals, they harvest legitimate contributions yet the creators expect them to be automatically protected as legitimate contributions and outside of normal guidance on creation. There are cadres of users who think this is what wikipedia is about, or at least it is a way of making a big splash without knowing anything but how to tweak code (and then wikilawyer when challenged). ] 06:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Punishing a whole community for the actions of one person is not reasonable. ]] 16:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' per above. ] ]]] 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' In the grand scheme of things I'd like to see portals deprecated, but doing so is not where the community is at right now. If there is consensus to keep portals, having a wikiproject to maintain them seems like a good idea. <small>I also feel ]...</small> ] ]] ]] 06:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
	====Survey on sub-proposal to reform WikiProject Portals====
	*'''Support''' as proposer and per above. <span style="color:#FFB3FF;">Kirbanzo</span> <sup>(] - ] - ])</sup> 23:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' as the proposal is in the wrong forum and contains no details of what reform is being suggested, let alone how these reforms would solve the issues identified. ] (]) 01:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*This is related to the discussion as the WikiProject is headed by the user being discussed here. <span style="color:#FFB3FF;">Kirbanzo</span> <sup>(] - ] - ])</sup> 13:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	:**Wikprojects are a collection of editors, not just one person. There is no evidence presented that there is any admin action required regarding the WikiProject as a whole collectively (not that I can immediately think of what that action could look like if it were), and there isn't even consensus that admin action regarding the single editor is required. ] (]) 13:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	::*Fair point, but considering the discussion below it should still be considered. <span style="color:#FFB3FF;">Kirbanzo</span> <sup>(] - ] - ])</sup> 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. I’ve been doing some reform work of this type by creating a ] WikiProject Portals has an ] but I’m not sure how much it gets used. —] (] &#124; ]) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	** It took quite a lot of discussion to form a consensus for those assessment criteria. Any portals would need to be evaluated against them to ensure they meet at least minimal quality standards (not including the other criteria in the portal guidelines). It will take a while to go through all of the portals and rate them on the quality scale, and that is one of our backlog tasks. — AfroThundr <sup>(] · ] · ])</sup> 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' in theory. It makes more sense than the above "I disagree with you so I will try to just erase you" bullshit. However, it's not at all clear that the wikiproject, as such, needs any "reform"; rather, some specific decisions and actions taken by its participants have turned out to be controversial, and the community will discuss that (hopefully in a more sensible venue like ]), and the wikiprojects should abide by the result of that process. We don't have any indication this would not happen, so there isn't actually a "reform" to perform, nor is there yet any consensus of what form that should take anyway. Some people here seem to be under the impression that WP is going to come out against portals; others that it'll be against automated portals; others that it'll be against portals on minor topics (and sub-sub-sub-topics) that people aren't likely to seek a portal for; others that nothing is actual broken; others that .... There isn't a single direction of "reform" being proposed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' The way to reform a project is to get involved with it. We've already had multiple discussions about how the project should be structured and how it should operate on the project pages themselves, and further suggestions there are always welcome. But proposing "reform" without specifying what particular changes are being suggested isn't exactly helpful. ]] 16:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Exactly right, {{u|Waggers}}, exactly right. You've hit the nail on the head. ] ] 18:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::But is you see little need for portals why get involved? ] (]) 23:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Qualified support'''. The current project is far from perfect but it's hard to give unqualified support without a statement of specific reforms. We don't want thousands more portals, but last year's RfC shows that it would be equally inappropriate to "reform" into WikiProject Nuke All Portals From Orbit. I removed my name from the project's roster when portal creation grew rapidly. Since then I have done some maintenance but I see little point in improving pages that other editors are working so hard to delete. I could rejoin a project that combined improved existing portals with the right blend of identifying poor, narrow portals for deletion and creating portals in small numbers where clear gaps exist. ] (]) 13:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			If an RfC about ''policy'' -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists.
	====Discussion on proposal to reform WikiProject Portals====
	*'''Query''' {{ping|Kirbanzo}} - do you have any early thoughts about what some good reforms would be to shift the primary focus of the project towards maintenance/improvement over creation? ] (]) 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*See addendum. <span style="color:#FFB3FF;">Kirbanzo</span> <sup>(] - ] - ])</sup> 13:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Transcluded to ]. ] (]) 23:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
	* No, do not transclude important discussions from AN to the relevant talkpage. Hold the discussion on the relevant talk page. Transclude to here is there is good reason, which there is not. Holding hte discussion here means watchlisting it doesn't work, and it wont be archived in the right place. Shutting down a WikiProject is not in scope for WP:AN. --] (]) 02:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	* The Portals Wikiproject members can't even come up with a proper new guideline for what topics get a portal even when faced with a village pump imposed moratorium. The discussion is all over the place with no focus. Heck they did not even follow their old guideline about picking subjects broud enough to gain reader and editor interest. The only thing they appear to agree on is MORE MORE MORE and using ] as a to do list. Their newsletter said they are pushing to 10,000 portals (off a base of 1500 old line portals). Now the number of portals will shrink until and unless they get new guidelines passed by an RFC. ] (]) 09:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
			For disclosure this is about ] on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and ], about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how ''absolutely wild'' it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, ''']''', and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are.
	* That old guideline wasn't generally followed, ever. That's because portals (except those on the main page) get about 1 to 3 percent of the amount of traffic that their corresponding root articles get. In other words, "not a lot". That's because almost all their traffic comes via WP internal links. Almost nobody googles "Portal". So, for the vast majority of topics, large numbers of readers and editors will never be forthcoming, and never were. Out of the 1500 portals, about 100 had maintainers (maintained by around 60 editors), and maybe 20% of them regularly edited the portals they maintained.
	: The WikiProject, and the community, need feedback in the form of hard numbers, in order to get a sense of what will even get used. How hard would it be to make a chart listing all the portals in one column, and their page views for the past month in the second column, and then sort the chart by the second column? That might provide some insight. <span class="nowrap">&nbsp;&nbsp; &mdash; '']''&nbsp;&nbsp; </span> 11:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	*''Sigh''. :TTH, you had this data already. You know that portal pageviews are miniscule. At the RFC on deleting the portal namespace, stats were posted on pageviews, and not even all the portals linked from the front page had decent viewing rates.
	:Yet despite knowing all that, you personally created thousands of new portals, despite having all the evidence in front of you that they are useless.
	:And when I presented the evidence to you again, and asked you to desist, you were furious. Instead of assessing the issues, you posted multi-screenfull unfocused ramblings replete with shouts of "bias", "personal attack" etc.
	:The problem is not any shortage of information. The problem is that as @] notes above, the discussions in the WikiProject have no focus, no regard for available evidence, and no respect for community consensus.
	:Legacypac and usually disagree, but in this case we see exactly the same problem: a WikiProject which has a long and sustained track record of being utterly incapable of acting responsibly wrt the page within its purview.
	:This is not ''solely'' TTH's doing. TTH bears by far the highest responsibility because TTH has been both the most prolific creator and the most angry objector to calls for restraint, but several other regulars at WikiProject Portals have been equally unfocused and equally bonkers. For example:
	:* Only 15 days ago, ]: a proposal to create portals up to VA Lelevl 5, when even VA level 4 would be about 10,000 portals.
	:* 17 days ago, ]: a proposal for portals to have minimum of only 20 articles. Precisely the sort of microportal of which the community has had enough.
	:So the community simply cannot rely on this group to set and uphold resposnsible guidelines. --] <small>] • (])</small> 11:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	:: {{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} I make the proposal 5. And it was a proposal. I '''Support''' a reform in WikiProject Portals. My idea is the existence of approximately 1000(level 3) single page portals layout, directly linked in tree model with the main page. The role of the wikiproject should be to organize this tree and develop tools to transform all portals into single-page layout portals.] (]) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::@], no technical diversions. My point is not about ''how'' the portals operate; it's about their scope. And 20 pages is insanely narrow. A 20-page portal is just an bloated navbox. --] <small>] • (])</small> 12:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	::{{ping|BrownHairedGirl}} I'm trying to figure out how you've come to the conclusion that WPPORT completely ignores evidence and consensus. The project discussions I've participated in have been rational and reasonable, and far from unfocused. Also, please try not to conflate individual editors' behavior with the project as a whole. I've seen no evidence that the WikiProject has acted irresponsibly regarding the Portal system. If you're referring to the several thousand new portals created by TTH, you should keep in mind that WikiProjects don't have any actual authority to dictate who can and can't create something (even if we were opposed to creating new portals). That's what guidelines are for.
	::We've been working to develop updated criteria for the ] since November (rebooted from even earlier discussions in April) - which you already know, since you've participated as well. We're still working on the guidelines so that we have better, more concrete criteria to judge new and existing portals against (and which would make MfD easier for those that fail). Once we've developed consensus on these, they can be applied to the namespace to fix the portals that can be fixed, and remove the ones that can't (new or old). <small>(Side note: Anyone with input or ideas is welcome to participate at ].)</small>
	::Actions in the Portal namespace itself (for most of us, it seems) has mostly been technical fixes and tweaks to our tools. Also, your not agreeing with particular proposals does not make those proposing them irresponsible or incompetent. Talk pages are a place to discuss new ideas so that we can find the benefits and drawbacks of each. If we constantly had to worry about being labeled as irresponsible or incompetent for suggesting something, we'd never have any new ideas or get anything done. I've made plenty of suggestions that didn't pan out later, as I'm sure you have, and everyone else here. That's how we learn what works and what doesn't and build a better encyclopedia. In the end, that's what we're all here for right? — AfroThundr <sup>(] · ] · ])</sup> 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::{{yo|AfroThundr3007730}} that's not at all how it looks from outside.
	:::# Last year, the project began developing automated portals, whose advocates claimed need little or no curation. No attempt was made to hold an RFC to determine whether the community found these automated portals to be a worthwhile addition. (I think I see an emerging consensus that they are not useful, or maybe useful only in some curcumstances)
	:::# Following the ] RFC which decided not to actually delete the whole portal namespace, the project decided to massively expand the number of portals, despite the clear evidence at RFC that many editors wanted ''fewer'' portals. At no point did the project initiate an RFC to establish whether there was a community consensus for the project's enthusiasm to bizarrely interpret "don't TNT the lot" as "create thousands more".
	:::# You are right that a WikiProject has no powers of restraint on an individual editor. However, the project does have an ability to watch what is done, and to act a venue to monitor inappropriate creations, and to initiate cleanup as needed. I see no sign at all that the project has done ''any'' of that ... and on the contrary, when outsiders have challenged TTH's sprees of portalspam, other project members have rallied to TTH's defence.
	:::# Even now, as a cleanup is underway, I see next to no assistance from project members. V few even comment in the MFDs. For example, take the most extreme case so far: ], an utterly absurd creation for which there exists precisely zero relevant selected articles ... yet ''none'' of the project regulars is visible.<br/>In my view, a WikiProject which shows zero interest in removing inappropriate pages within its scope is dysfunctionally irresponsible.
	:::# The project's efforts to develop guidelines have been exceptionally poor. The discussions have been rambling and unfocused, with a persistent failure to distinguish between factors such as technical ability to create, availability of editors to maintain and monitor, actual usage data, etc.
	:::# Above all, none of the proposals has been put to an RFC to gauge community consensus, so the guideline discussion have effectively been the work of a small group of editors who are united by a common desire to massively increase the number of automated portals.
	:::# The result of this failure has been a walled garden of thousands of micro-portals, sustained only by the enthusiasm of the portal project ... and the absolutely inevitable massive shitstorm at the village pump.
	::::What this needs now is a structured RFC, which brings together some or all of the proposals made at the project, adds proposals from outside the project, and seeks a community consensus. --] <small>] • (])</small> 20:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
			I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. ] (]) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Proposal 6: Proposed Deletion for portals===
			:I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. ] (]) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{atop|Withdrawn by proposer. —] (] &#124; ]) 17:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)}}
			::The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc.
	'''Proposal:''' Create a ] criterion for portals created on April 8, 2018 or later by any user. Per normal PROD rules, the page would be deleted after 7 days, but a user who objects to the deletion may remove the prod template. However, unlike regular PROD, the creator would not be allowed to remove the template (though they would of course be allowed to contest it on the talk page). —] (] &#124; ]) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
			::This isn't just my opinion, it's Misplaced Pages policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of ] (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously ''so'' important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (]). ] (]) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as proposer. I proposed this to resolve issues raised by various opposers. This would provide a longer waiting period before deletion, reduce the chances that the recently created portals that comply with the ], and not restrict it to a single user, because there were other users who created problematic portals. Possible reasons for removing a prod template include the portal meeting the portal guidelines or being under active development. —] (] &#124; ]) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time.
	*'''Comment'''. I'm leaning support, having been mulling over proposing something like this myself but, I'm not certain this proposal is quite right yet. I don't think there should be a list of acceptable reasons to deprod, rather a non-exhaustive list of examples to reduce the chance of wikilawyering about it (and there will be situations we don't think of and probably some we do that we shouldn't list per ]). Any restriction on creators deprodding needs to come with exceptions for reverting obvious vandalism and where prod is not permitted (e.g. doesn't meet the criteria, previously kept in a discussion, etc) - it may be better to say creators ''should not'' rather than ''must not''. I also think it important that prodded portals show up in article alerts before this goes live (I no idea if this would require any changes to bot code or not, and if it does how significant it might be). ] (]) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
	**I've now ] the article alert bot maintainer those questions. ] (]) 22:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)		:::There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. ] (]) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	*::The deprod "criteria" are suggestions and not part of the proposal. —] (] &#124; ]) 01:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			:*:Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? ]] 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	*:::I wasn't certain either way, so thanks for clarifying. I do think though that jumping straight in to an RfC without workshopping the proposal first was a poor choice though - there is a good idea but it needs refining before I am comfortable supporting it. ] (]) 03:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			:*::I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	*Prod isn't going to do anything except delay MFD for a week so long as there's multiple users who think all portals, however narrow, should be kept. . —] 23:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
	**Do multiple users think that? I certainly don't; I just oppose the view that all should be deleted. ] (]) 23:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)		:I think you should move this complaint to ]. You will get better response there. ] (]) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think {{U|Liz}}'s comments are spot on.--] (]) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	**{{replyto|Cryptic}} How does a link to a deletion log support the assertion that there are multiple users who think all portals should be kept? I'm one of the most (perhaps even the most) vocal advocates against the proposed speedy deletion criterion, yet I do not hold that view. I've repeatedly explained that I simply think that only some of the portals should be deleted, and that it is more important to get it right than to do it quickly - ]. ] (]) 00:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::"More" response is not always a better response. And I think we addressed Gnomingstuff's question, as much as I understood what they were asking about. It was pretty vague. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	* '''Oppose'''. This would be a pseudo-CSD failing ]. Better to list or reference all new templated portals in a big MfD. —] (]) 00:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' some users think all portals, no matter how narrow or inappropriate the topic, need to be debated at MfD. SmokeyJoe wants a 3500 portal MfD yet NorthAmerica1000 is complaining about a 6 fruit portals being bundled. A lot of unreasonable positions here. ] (]) 01:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' What's to stop the group behind the auto-portals removing every PROD? ] (]) 01:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	**I would imagine exactly the same thing that stops (groups of) editors systematically removing prods from any given set of articles - doing so is disruptive editing - just as systematically tagging any large set of articles without considering them is (see also ] and ] points 2 and 3). ] (]) 03:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' check out some of the comments here ] where all portals prior to the reboot survived a deletion discussion as acceptable and any similar ones are therefore acceptable. No one followed the guidelines because they don't matter anymore. Amazing stuff. ] (]) 01:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Transcluded to ]. ] (]) 02:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	*{{sbb}}'''Oppose''' CSD is better, this just sounds like MfD with extra steps. ]]] 11:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I can think of at least three editors who would make it their duty in life to automatically remove a PROD with the rationale, "Controversial; take to MfD". Which makes this a waste of everyone's time. ]]] 11:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' Being created recently is not a rationale for deletion, let alone semi-speedy deletion. ] (]) 13:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
	===Proposal 7: Toss it to the WikiProjects===
	''<small>I suggested at the Arbcom case that this be imposed by motion as an interim measure, but I'll put it as a proposal here to allow people to support or oppose it.</small>''<br>Proposal: All editors intending to create a portal must consult with the relevant WikiProject for that topic as to whether they feel a portal would be useful. All existing portals should be raised at the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects and deleted if there is no consensus at any one of those projects that the portal should be kept. If the topic has no relevant WikiProject, it should be deleted.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 10:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as proposer. This would have the advantages of avoiding bulk speedy deletions, avoiding personalising disputes or naming-and-shaming individuals on either the pro or anti side, avoiding flooding MFD, putting the decision on each portal in the hands of those who actually know about that topic and can make an informed call as to whether the portal would be potentially useful (if a topic is so obscure that it doesn't have a relevant project, then it's reasonable to assume that it's unlikely there are sufficient people with an interest in the topic to maintain or use a portal), and providing an opportunity to neutrally assess whether the older portals are still deemed to be serving a useful purpose. The process could probably be largely automated; a bot could presumably scrape the WikiProjects listed on the talk page of the parent article for each portal, and post a "Do you find this portal useful?" question to the talk pages of those projects, and after a reasonable time (presumably 30 days) we could then go through at leisure and see which portals are considered worth keeping. It might annoy some projects, as e.g. ] or ] will be flooded with 50 different discussions, but unless we're going to speedy delete or speedy keep every portal there will be a flooding effect somewhere, and at least this way it spreads the flood to a manageable level across multiple pages, rather than dumping 4000 pages into ] or ].&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 10:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' as the compromise candidate. It's not guaranteed to annoy no-one or be loved by all, but it's better than, as we seem to be enjoying atm, a process that annoys more and is loved even less... ]]] 10:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	**It won't be liked by anyone, as it concentrates the decision-making in the hands of small cliques of people, but at least it (1)&nbsp;spreads the load regarding where the discussions take place, (2)&nbsp;notifies people interested in the topics who may not be aware of the existence of the portals, and (3)&nbsp;means the fate of ] is decided by people who have an interest in either London or Transport and hopefully have a better idea than the rest of us of what would be useful to readers.&nbsp;‑&nbsp;] 11:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	*{{ec}} '''Support with minor tweaks''': To avoid flooding WikiProjects there should be a limit on the number of concurrent discussions on each project (somewhere in the 5-10 region would be my first suggestion) and the 30-day deadline should not be absolute - e.g. if discussion is ongoing at that point there is no rush to close it, equally if consensus is abundantly apparent (by the standards of ]) before that there is no reason to delay taking any necessary action or inaction. Discussions should also be framed neutrally (i.e. don't describe it as "spam", "worthless", "essential" or anything like that.) Also, to avoid edit warring, arguments, etc there should be no extended discussion of which projects are asked - if any editor in good faith believes that a project is worth asking then they are worth asking. Finally there should be a list kept somewhere (probably at the portals project) of which projects have been asked about which portals so the same project doesn't get asked about repeatedly. ] (]) 11:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:On the neutral point, it might be worth agreeing a standard wording that can be added with a template that also provides links to basic information about portals so people don't have to keep repeating themselves. ] (]) 11:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Strong Oppose''' - See the bullet points below for my various rationales.
	:*Wikiprojects are perenially understaffed and underwatched, with some having no participation for months or even years at a time on their talk pages. Some are marked as semi-active or inactive. Making it a requirement to consult with projects with such problems would amount to muzzling portal creations for many topics, because nobody may actually come along to discuss a portal proposal.
	:*This proposal would further denigrate Misplaced Pages in the wrong direction, with an increasing ] type of governance regarding content, where permissions have to first be made to create pages. This would result in even more chilling effects than already exist in various areas of the encyclopedia at this time.
	:*The proposal goes entirely against the grain of ], point #5, concerning being ]. Misplaced Pages having no firm rules is one of the fundamental principles of the encyclopedia. The proposal also goes against the grain of ] in several ways.
	:* Regarding the notion that if a topic has no project, the portal would then be procedurally deleted: some topics may not have a direct Wikiproject, but may have a related one. For example, there is no direct project for the topic of air conditioning, but a related project would be WikiProject Engineering.
	::Furthermore, many of the discussions listed at ] receive very little input, sitting in limbo. If a Wikiproject cannot be created without first consulting a forum that receives little input, and therefore a portal could not be created without a project backing it, all without a means for a project to get off the ground in the first place, it would amount to a ] of automatically denying portal creation for some topics based upon the already largely broken system at the WP Council.
	:* Would older portals also be automatically, procedurally deleted if no project exists, or would this only apply to the newer ones, with a grandfather clause existent for the older portals? Either way, automatic deletion in this manner goes against several core principles of Misplaced Pages, and would serve to unnecessarily stifle the creation of functional, useful content.
	:* Regarding having discussions for all existing portals raised on talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects: this is very unlikely to even be viable. Who would ultimately be responsible to perform creating and then watching all of these discussions? Would said posited discussions be a subjective ], or based upon actual objective discussion about a portal's content and how it relates to a topic? Importantly, this would significantly and negatively shift Misplaced Pages from being a volunteer project to one that requires specific actions, in this case, mandatory discussions for all content in the portal ]. This would set a very poor precedent for the encyclopedia.
	:* Regarding the notion of procedurally deleting portals if no consensus exists in a talk page discussion: at AfD, MfD, and other areas of deletion on Misplaced Pages, a no consensus result typically results in retention of a page or pages, rather than deletion.
	:*There's more, but I will leave my post at that for now.
	:– <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 12:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' I appreciate this proposal as one made in good faith using reasoned language. We should certainly invite WikiProjects to have more involvement in portals, including their creation and deletion. However, Northamerica1000 makes enough convincing arguments that I don't need to add any. ] (]) 13:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Unfortunately reasonable, but WikiProjects do not own topics within their scope. (See also ].) --] (]) 13:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	* An ] is under discussion at the portal guidelines talk page. The issue is not one of ownership; it's integrating support for portals with the same interested editors who maintain the navigation boxes and articles for the topic area. Particularly if the helper templates are used, editors need to take portals into account when modifying any associated navigation boxes and articles. But in general, portals can only be successful in the long term if they are supported in the same way as the rest of the related content. Accordingly, decisions on their creation and maintenance should be made by those editors, either under the aegis of associated WikiProjects, or through other methods of identifying editors active in the area. ] (]) 15:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	*If a portal is of high quality, it does not really matter whether there is a WikiProject about a related topic or not. Usually there will be a WikiProject (we have projects covering almost everything), but probably not a very active one. I do agree with the inviting subject experts to portal discussions, though. —''']''' (]·]) 15:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - I have tossed this out at ]. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC:_Portals_and_Project_Sponsorship . ] (]) 21:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - I will argue that NorthAmerica1000's argument about understaffed WikiProjects is a valid consideration that will serve as a check on the creation of rogue portals. (We are not discussing rogue WikiProjects here.) ] (]) 21:28, 30 March 2019 (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)
	*'''Comment''' – Wow, so <u>now we have two identical discussions occurring about the same topic in two different places</u>, now at ''']'''. As such, pinging all users who have participated here who have not commented at the new discussion, so their opinions here won't be lost or discounted at the new discussion: {{ping|Serial Number 54129|Thryduulf|Certes|Isaacl|Kusma}} Per the new discussion, I feel that '''this discussion should now be closed, with a redirect provided to the new discussion in the closure'''. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:22, 31 March 2019 (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)
	**Three places, counting the discussion started in February at the portal guidelines talk page. ] (]) 02:05, 31 March 2019 (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)
	* '''Request Closure''' This is at multiple venues and since this is not a proposal that ''affects administrators'' (specifically) this one should probably be procedurally closed. ]<sup> ]</sup> 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
			::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
			::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	===Portal MfD Results===
			: 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)
	All Portals closed at ] during 2019
			::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Personal attacks by ] ==
	Grouped Nominations total 133 Portals (161 portals total):
			{{Atop|The OP needs to let go and move on.--] (]) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	#] '''Deleted''' 64 portals
	#] '''Deleted''' 30 Portals
	#] '''Deleted''' 23 Portals
	#] '''Deleted''' 6 Portals
	#] 4 Portals '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted''' 2 Portals
	#] '''Deleted''' 2 Portals
	#] '''Deleted''' 2 Portals
			I was to report this here.
	Individual Nominations:
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] Reverted to non-Automated version
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted G7'''
	#] '''Deleted P2'''
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted G8'''
	#] '''Speedy Deleted P1/A10''' exactly the same as ] also created by the TTH
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Deleted'''#
	#] '''Deleted'''
	#] '''Speedy Deleted''' P2
	#] '''No consensus'''
			The editor in question: {{Userlinks|Remsense}}
	Related WikiProject:
	#] '''Demoted'''
	====Discussion on MfD results====
	:We get the message. 3% of portals, selected from the worst examples, have successfully been removed. I !voted to delete most of them myself. You are also working hard to get portal-related tools deleted while discussions on the project's future continue. However, AN is not the place to list every tiny victory in the War on Portals. This trophy cabinet is now full. ] (]) 13:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	::It's also worth noting that not all of these were deleted uncontroversially, so do not demonstrate a need for a speedy deletion criterion. This list, if you wish to maintain it, belongs in userspace. ] (]) 13:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::This list is very relevant to a discussion about creating a CSD for similar pages. It provides an easy way for users to assess discussions unfiltered by opinions which go against community consensus. ] (]) 15:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	::*I agree with {{u|Thryduulf}}; the trophy case belongs in userspace. Furthermore, most of the pages deleted were from bundled nominations. However, at ], it states, "For the avoidance of doubt, '''bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions''' such as "should Misplaced Pages include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy." (Bold emphasis mine.) While WP:MULTIAFD technically applies only to articles, it comes across as an inappropriate list for this venue, where policy decisions are being discussed. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Yet this list was broadcast via the Portals Update #30 Newsletter. It can't be all that bad. No one wants to debate each neighborhood of Portland or each of the 723 Indian districts one by one. If someone listed a dozen very similar pages for debate there would be a lot of pushback to bundle them. Can we assume from these comments you insist on debating 4500 automated portals one by one? ] (]) 02:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::*Exactly that. This isn't one of our most frequently cited policies – mainly because attempts to do things that like that haven't been common since the early 2000s – but anyone deeply steeped in policy should already know it by heart, especially if they're big into deletion. Proposing major changes to deletion policy without actually understanding deletion policy is a competence failure. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::*{{replyto|Legacypac}} Bundling closely related discussions together is a Good Thing but completely different to using a bundled nomination of portals about 723 Indian districts to claim that there is consensus to speedily delete all single-page portals. ] (]) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::As an Admin you really should be required not to post such misleading characterizations of what I said and the list of MfDs. The community deserves better than this. ] (]) 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::While that is slightly more extreme than your position, I did not claim it was your position and it is far from being grossly misleading - certainly far less so than your mischaracterisations about what I am advocating for. This is particularly true as looking through the bundles, many are nowhere near as clear-cut as "Indian districts" - e.g. ] is quite likely to end as a trainwreck, and ] is a clearly inappropriate bundling of unrelated pages. ] (]) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	*I think it should be reformatted and moved to our existing page, ] (please see the bottom on how to correctly add the closes, this seems to have been neglected lately). —] (] &#124; ]) 16:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
			* Claiming a user "can't read": . Clear violation of ].
	===Thousands of Autogenerated "Quantum Portals" with no human curation? ===
			* Calling a user a "scoundrel": . Clear violation of ].
	{{Archive top|Wikiproject will be demoted into the Portals project at MfD ] (]) 06:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)}}
			* Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: . Clear violation of ].
	Discovered ] which I'm not sure I fully understand but looks like another big disruption brewing. Sent to ] ] (]) 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
			* Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation . Clear violation of ] and ].
	:Please note that in the case of quantum portals there would be no actual pages stored in Misplaced Pages, There would be a link which would create a temporary page which would exist only while it was open, and would disappear when closed, like a search result. Since they would only exist when someone actively invoked them, their existence would depend on them being seen as useful to the reader at the time. Some processing time would be necessary, currently this appears to be limited by technical constraints, and is the same as would be used for rendering an uncached article or saving an edit, so it is hard to see where massive disruption would come from. No maintenance would be required, other than occasional improvements to the script.&middot; &middot; &middot; ] ]: 16:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
			] (]) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	::] (or anyone else confused by this), see to get an idea of what they're talking about here. They don't serve exactly the same purpose—Reasonator assembles a pseudo-article in your browser on-the-fly based on data (which has no useful purpose on en-wiki, but it has an obvious potential use in more obscure languages, since it's less prone to errors than translation software)—but the principle is the same as that being discussed here. <p>I personally find the idea of a "quantum portal" beyond pointless, given that barely anyone uses even the real portals (something like ] and ]—both major topics with a high degree of world-wide interest and well over 100,000(!) incoming direct links— respectively), but I can see that the theory behind it might make sense, especially for smaller Wikipedias where the category structure isn't as well organized and "show me a list of all the articles we currently have about trains, and all the train-related topics which other Wikipedias consider important but where we don't currently have an article" might actually be useful. <p>However, English Misplaced Pages is certainly not the appropriate testing ground for TTH to be conducting his experiments, especially given that , let alone the most recent attempt with the portals.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp;] 11:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
			:Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{Archive bottom}}
			:@2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at ] (]) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per ]. ] (]) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			::(For the record, I will not be participating in any ] process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			:You were ''not'' instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". ] (]) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			: IP, just ]. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you ] per ], as you haven't shown ''sanctionable and repeated'' misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{reply to|Johnuniq}} {{tqi|After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here.}} What does that diff have to do with anything? My complaint at ] was about Remsense's 3RR violation. My complaint here is about their personal attacks. I was directed to report that here.
	=== Non-open drafting of an RfC about portals, and BHG behavior in relation to it ===
	{{atop|reason=Irrespective of the previous misunderstandings or transgressions, it should be clear ''by now'' that
	# ] does not wish to communicate with ] on her own talkpage
	# She also does not welcome SMc's participation in the drafting (in her userspace) of ].
	SMc may disagree with (2) being the best way forward but neither he nor any admin on this board can ''compel'' BHG to take SMc's input ''at this point''. SMc, of course, will have the opportunity to comment if/when the RfC does goes live; or, can draft an alternate RfC if he so wishes {{small|(not my recommendation, fwiw)}}.{{pb}} I don't believe it is a productive use of the community resources, or helpful to the editors involved, to dissect the minutiae of this recent dispute to judge who was more-in-the-wrong and apportion ] (which, really, is the max "punishment" that any of this can merit). So I'll just ask SmC to respect BHG's wishes on the two points listed above and urge the two experienced editors to avoid addressing each other as far as possible over the next few days. ] (]) 07:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)}}
	{{U|BrownHairedGirl}} and a few others she's hand-selected are drafting a proposed RfC about all of this. I have concerns about the non-open drafting of it. Its present wording is a train-wreck, and seems almost engineered to inflame dispute rather than resolve it (details ). I also have behavioral concerns about BHG's over-control of this page and admin-unbecoming incivility and other behavior in regard to it.
	* I was directed to the draft and its talk page by BHG herself: "See ] and its talkpage" .
	**Not so. You were ''told about'' its existence. You were ''not invited'' to participate. (The distinction is not complicated. If I told you where me house is, that would not be an invitation to push your way in and make yourself at home).<br/> Your edits to that page were all made to a page which clearly warned you not to edit it. See e.g. the page when you made your first edit: a hatnote which said {{tq|This page is for discussion <u>by invitation</u> of the ]. If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl.}}, and below that a list of the editors who had been invited, and why.<br/>All open, transparent, striving for balance, and clear that you were not invited. I can only speculate whether you a) did not read it, or b) did not comprehend that plain English, or c) just chose for some reason to ignore it.<br/>The rest of SMcC's post below is similar nonsense: misrepresentations, half-truths, and flat-out malicious lies. --] <small>] • (])</small> 06:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	* After spending the time to do some policy analysis of this and to suggest revisions to most sections, it was all mass reverted by BHG , on the grounds that I didn't have "permission" to comment there, despite being sent there by her, and despite others already replying to what I wrote . This kind of selective censorship does senseless violence to talk pages, not to mention the actual process of drafting this RfC.
	**No, you were ''not''{{tq|sent there}}. You were ''told about'' the page's existence. As above, there was a hatnote saying not to edit the page..<br/>Holding a discussion among a defined small group is not "censorship". It is a form of collaboration. --] <small>] • (])</small> 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	* She'd earlier said (though I did not notice it at the time) at her own talk page "I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance". She then censored all this substance anyway, with a demand that I put it on her regular talk page not the draft's talk page.
	**Yes, I did indeed write {{tq|I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance}}. But note that word "was"; it's past tense, to indicate that I am no longer happy to discuss with you.And note that SMcCandlish has dishonestly taken that phrase out of it context. My entire from which that is excerpted reads: {{tq|SMcCandlish a thoroughly bad faith comment like that bogus allegation that I get angry because my close is criticised marks the end of our discussion.<br/>I was quite happy to engage with you on the substance, but if you want to engage in that sort of smeary, twisted ad hominem, the discussion is over.<br/>Given that you ''agree'' that we need a consensus of criteria for portals, I really wonder what on earth was the point of this whole discussion.<br/>The RFC is not a public drafting process. I chose a small groups of people with differing views to facilitate quick progress. So the talk page is for that group only}}<br/> My edit summary was "enough".<br/>SMcCandlish's attempt to portray that as an invite to post on my pages is either ]-level reading comprehension problems, or a wilful attempt to mislead AN by dishonest trimming of a quote. --] <small>] • (])</small> 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Such a "you can't discuss it here" demand in itself is {{em|highly irregular}}. I can't think of any draft RfC in WP history with a talk page ]ed in this manner by someone. It'a also inconsistent with ] and ].
	**This is a ], not a ]. See ].<br/>If and when the group completes the draft and move sit to apublic page, then you or anyone else can join in whatever discussion happens there. --] <small>] • (])</small> 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Whatever; I did as requested, and relocated all of this feedback to BHG's talk page. I think it's important feedback, since since 5 of the 6 sections of the RfC draft are very problematic (several of the proposals are in direct conflict with policy and with ArbCom rulings, for example).
	**I did not request you to relocate anything to my talk page. I had already banned you from it.<br/>The edit summary which you quote below was a verbatim quote of the draft talk's hatnote, not a request or invitation. --] <small>] • (])</small> 06:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	**Whether or not there is any merit to your claim that your post contained {{tq|important feedback}}, that does not entitle you to impose it on another editor's talk page. You also seem to assume that you have some special insight into policy which is so critically important that you could not wait to present it either at the later public discussion of the draft, or at the RFC itself. If you genuinely believed that bizarre proposition to be true, then you should have taken care to behave with civility so that your comments would not be deleted unread. --] <small>] • (])</small> 06:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Despite having demanded it ("which part of "If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl" was unclear to you???" ), BHG then censored this version , too. Note in particular the uncivil edit summary: "you know perfectly well why you have been banned from my talk page. Now get lost". No admin should behave this way.
	**I did not {{tq|censor}} your post. I unread removed from my usertalkpage (see ]) a post from an uncivil editor who I had banned from my talk page for making a malicious and false allegation of bad faith.<br/>You know perfectly that you had been banned from my talk page because I honestly and fulsomely answered your questions about the close, you accused me of saying in effect {{tq|"I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent".}}<br/>You chose to personalise a disagreement, and you chose to accuse me of "spin" and "vent". Those are accusation of bad faith, and they are conversation-stoppers in any context. I had given you my time to explain what I had done and why, and I am entitled to the very basic courtesy of not being accused of "spin" when I write a good faith explanation. <br/>It is risible of you to kill a conversation with your rudeness and your ABF, and then whine that you were told to "get lost". There is clear warning in my editnotice to assume good faith, not that it should be needed ... and when you have been asked no to post any more a
	* This is not actually a true claim; I had no idea BHG had "banned" me from her talk page until long after the fact, as I received no talk page notice about it. This apparently happened ; note the ]: "maliciously false accusations of bad faith", which is pure projection, and accusing someone of malicious intent is a blatant ]. (Last I checked, BHG doesn't have psychic powers and has no basis for assuming "malice" on my part; nor did I make any kind of accusation of bad faith toward her to begin with.)
	**The accusation of bad faith was made in your post of 00:22, in whch described my honest description of my close as {{tq| "I get angry when when my closes are faintly criticized, and will spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent".}} <br/>You do not have to agree with my actions, or believe that my rationale is correct; but an an accusation of spinning "implausible interpretations" and of"venting" is an accusation of bad faith. It is demonstrably untrue, and can only have been made for malicious purposes.<br/>I made it very clear that I closed the RFC with a recommendation for a folowup portal-criteria RFC because the criteria were clearly unresolved and highly controversial. SMcC said in the same post {{tq|I agree that "editors need to build a community consensus on criteria for whether a portal should exist}} ... so all this querying of the close was all nonsense anyway: SMcC actually agreed with point he was contesting. Bizarre conduct. Was it baiting? --] <small>] • (])</small> 06:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Importantly, the "ban" message has a timestamp of 00:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC), while every single demand BHG made, diffed in series above, to move my RfC-draft commentary to her main talk page came {{em|after}} that, and no such "ban" was mentioned in any of those demands. This is blatant ] (it qualifies under at least 3 of the 4 points there), is ] behavior, and also an ] failure greater than the civility lapses and bogus aspersions.
	**Yet more hyerbolic nonsense. Writing a draft in userpsace is not a consensus-building process. It is a private discussion in userpsace. Nothing discussed on my draft page is any way binding on anyone or on any policy or guideline, unless several steps down the road it it is presented at an actual consensus-forming process and is adopted by consensus.<br/>Nothing in ] requires me to facilitate the repeated intrusions on my talk pages by an editor who has responded to my good faith WP:ADMINACCT explanations by making a malicious accusation of bad faith. --] <small>] • (])</small> 07:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	* What I {{em|actually}} did – what predicated all this weird behavior – was suggest that her strange reaction to my comments in user talk about one of her related closing decisions at this AN page seemed to me like a knee-jerk over-reaction to criticism. BHG's "ban" editsummary and wave of targeted censoriousness all being in response to {{em|that}} criticism (which I couched in terms of my own perception, not any allegations of intent) clearly proves the original point. It's the furthest thing from "maliciously false accusations of bad faith", but an accurate description of what's been happening.
	* It's not actually possible to "ban" people from your talk page, per ] policy (at most, ignoring a request to stay away and instead using someone's talk page for unconstructive purposes will be used against you at ANI; nothing I've done here is unconstructive). Further, with BHG being an admin, ] applies. I'm entirely within my editorial rights to raise concerns about BHG's over-control, as an admin, of this RfC drafting, at her talk page.
	* As for the original close I constructively criticized: BHG clearly shouldn't be closing any of these discussions, being highly partisan and invested in the outcome.
	* I've attempted to make it clear that I'm actually in agreement with BHG that many of our portals do not need to exist, that there are maintenance costs associated with them, that an RfC is necessary, and that the community clearly does need to establish guidelines about them. I also reached out in e-mail, suggesting this was all just some mutual misunderstanding and "one of those days". This all seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
			{{tqi|If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute.}} For pursuing enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is that?
	{{strong|I don't think this RfC should be drafted inside a tiny echo chamber}}, especially when the output so far flies in the face of policy and ArbCom decisions. Either move the draft to "Misplaced Pages:" namespace and let everyone help shape it, or someone needs to draft a competing RfC that makes more sense. I think we all know from past experience that the former is a more productive process, though competing RfCs often nevertheless come to a clear consensus result.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 02:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{reply to|Phil Bridger}} {{tqi|You were not instructed to report this here.}} Yes I was. {{tqi|The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if".}} And the antecedent of that "if" is satisfied, as the above diffs show.
	Oh, for God's sake. This a pile of timewasting utter nonsense from SMcCandlish, who appeared on my talkpage this evening spoiling for a fight, and got banned from my talk after a malicious and false accusation of bad faith ... and the disregarded the ban.
			{{reply to|Codename_AD}} {{tqi|DROPTHESTICK}} The last retort of someone who knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy.
	Here's the facts.
			{{tqi|you haven't shown ''sanctionable'' and ''repeated'' misconduct on your diffs}} Yes, I have. How many more examples of Remsense's misconduct do you need? Give a number. ] (]) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	# I drafted an RFC offline and pondered what to do with it
	# I decided as a first step to try to form a small group of editors with divergent view to improve it, and then decide as group where to put the draft out for public reworking or launch it directly.
	# Every step of this was done on-wiki.
	# I chose two editors who thought broadly agreed with, and two who broadly disagreed with me. See it all at ]
	# I did ''not'' invite SMcCandlish to comment on the draft. What I did write was {{tq|I am now working with a few other editors of varying viewpoints to draft an RFC which would try to set guidelines on which portals should exist. See ] and its talkpage. }} . That is not an invitation
	# SMcCandlish's comments were posted to ], which at the time of SMcCanslish's postings ahad aclear header saying {{tq|This page is for discussion by invitation of the User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria. If other editors who wish to express views on the draft, please comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl.}} See that header present in the first post made there by SmcC. Itw a sthere for all his other posts too, but I laer made it much promienent
	# I did not invite SmcC to join the group, because a) it was already formed; b) i had promised the group nom or invite without everyone's approval; c) SmCC had already on my talk been actively misrepresenting me, and I saw no benefit in bring a problem-maker into a problem-solving discussion
	# I ended the discusion on my talk with SmcC because of his conduct. SMcC had made malicious and false accusation that I was acting in bad faith: specifically that I {{tq|spin implausible interpretations of what someone wrote just so I can vent".}}<br/>In invited anyone interested to read the discussion above and see for themselves that there was no venting and no spinning.
	# I then hated the discussion, and banned SmC from my talk page.<br/>There was no point in further engagement with SMcC, because if he genuinely believed that I was spinning and venting, that the discussion was clearly going nowhere; and if he was just hurling abuse, it was also going nowhere.
	# Only after closing that discussion did I see that SMcC had posted heavily on the talk page of my draft RFC. I then removed all his comments unread
	# I then saw a post on that draft page from another eidtor.@], who had written {{tq|If the User:SMcCandlish is going to be part of this working group I'm out of here. I have no interest in arging with their inability to be factual or analytical. Their comments should be removed so we can have a focused discussion.}}. I replied in agreement
	# I then found that SMcC had reposted his comments on my talk page, despite being asked not to do so.
	# I opened a discussion about his conduct at ANI, and then found I had just received an email from SmcC falsley claiming that I had been {{tq|"Gaming the consensus-building process": You invited my commentary, then nuked it}}.<br>Both blatant lies; I did not invite his commentary, and there was no gaming.
	# Then I found this pile of nonsense.
			With this blatant administrator abuse and corruption, it's no wonder Misplaced Pages is perceived as a joke by the public nowadays. Circling the wagons to shield a user from rule enforcement and cover for each other's admin abuse.
	He raised on my talk a legit question about my close, and I replied at length per ]. SMcC's response was to repeatedly misrepresent me, put words in my mouth, and then maliciously accuse me of bad faith ... and then falsely claim that I rescinded and invite which was never made, and ignore a very clear notice about a page he was asked not to post on.
			Why do you have such a strong interest in protecting Remsense from Misplaced Pages's rules? Is Remsense part of your "clique"? ] (]) 20:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	I have done nothing underhand here. I have created in my userapce a page ] which cleraly sets out what I am trying to do; to collate all options, with a clear statement {{tq|note that my aim is to ensure that all options which may command support are presented here, and not to promote my preferences. If I have omitted any options, or given undue prominence to some, or included too many options, please treat that as unintended error by BHG, and propose a fix}}.
			*'''Blocked'''. For the disruption and personal attacks above and at ], I have blocked 2001:569:7FEA:2900:0:0:0:0/64 for a month. Pinging {{u|Johnuniq}}: will blocking this /64 do it, John? ] &#124; ] 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC).
	If that is underhand or gaming the system, I am a banana.
			*:{{re|Bishonen}} My provider gives me /56 and leases of /48 are not unheard of at other providers. ] (]) 01:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I haven't even given anyone a reason to like me that much, so this kind of result only makes sense if I'm demonstrably the duller thorn in the community's side. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::If anything new turns up, let me or Bishonen know. I am closing this now. ] (]) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== Happy New Year! ==
	I have set out to draft this RFC in collaboration with 4 people, two of whom who I selected precisely because they disagree with me: see ].
			{{atop|result=Happy New Year to all editors on this project! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 00:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Misplaced Pages! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. <small>Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do.</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Happy New Year to the whole English Misplaced Pages community! ] (]) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			: Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. ] ] 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::The most I can muster, to all editors, is after 2024, I hope all of your 2025s are better than you expect them to be! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	I explicitly say in hat section {{tq|My thinking is that if we can each consensus between us on the design of an RFC, then we could either * Launch the RFC as what we have designed, or * Take it to broader design discussion. I currently have have no preference on which of those paths to follow.}}
			== RM completion request ==
	I don't know why SmcC is behaving like this but their conduct this evening resembles that of an angry drunk looking for a fight. It is disagraceful disruption, timewasting, and a stream of malicious misepresentation. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Done —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			}}
			Please carry out the moves at ]. I was attempting to close it, but got rate-limited because of the sheer number of pages in question. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Doing... ] (]) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			::And done. ] (]) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	:'''PS''' If there a strong feeling from others here that any draft produced by the we group we have assembled should be first taken to a public venue for further revision, then I for one would be very happy to do so. As I wrote long before SMcc appeared {{tq|Note that my aim is to ensure that all options which may command support are presented here, and not to promote my preferences. If I have omitted any options, or given undue prominence to some, or included too many options, please treat that as unintended error by BHG}}. The very last thing I wnat is an RFC which anyone feels in any way unfair, incomplete or otherise flawed.
			{{atop
	:However, I absolutely stand my decision that I do not want any further engagement with SmcC on my talk. As Legacypac wrote, {{tq|I have no interest in arging with their inability to be factual or analytical. Their comments should be removed so we can have a focused discussion.}}
			| result = Done —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 21:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	:The pile of malicious nonsense which SMcC has posted above merely confirms my judgement that SMcC would be a toxic and probably fatal wrecking factor in any attempt to collaborate. --] <small>] • (])</small> 03:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
			}}
	:{{ec}} '''Update''': I didn't know it at the time, but BHG was drafting an ANI about me simultaneously: ]. I would think these should be merged, probably to this one since it's better diffed and raises more issues, including admin-specific ones and ones about community process. I'm going to bed now. I'll say three things before I do so:
	:* It's possible BHG may have believed I saw her "ban" note, saw her reverts and read their edit summaries, and kept posting to the same RfC talk page page just to spite her. It's not the case. I did my policy analysis of the RfC draft all in one go (though multiple saves), with single-minded focus. My monitor is something like 38 inches diagonal. The "you have a notice" icon is a very tiny blip at the far top right for me, and something I do not notice until I'm done editing and am looking around for what to do next; usually it's just the ] bot leaving "RfC spam" on my talk page, so I don't always look at the notices immediately even when I see that there is one. This quite possible to have escalated out of a one-sided misunderstanding, a misperception of someone else's editing and notice-checking habits.
	:* However, I can't see any kind of excuse for having "banned" me from her talk page then making repeated demands I take something from the draft RfC talk page to her talk page. It's flat-out GAMING. {{strong|You can't bait editors into "you {{em|can't}} use my talk page but you {{em|must}} use my talk page" traps and then try to ANI them over it.}} That ] ANI report is a third ADMINCOND failure in the same "incident" (and such baiting actually resulted in a desysop before, though I won't name names, since the editor who did it took a break, returned, copped to it, and eventually got their admin bit back). And ever time BHG repeat the "malicious" accusation without any evidence of malice, and considerable evidence to the contrary, she's just ].
	:* All I really care about is a neutral, policy-compliant, sensibly worded RfC to arrive at a solid community consensus about when we should and should not have a portal. I don't think an RfC-drafting process controlled by one person can do that (especially given the ] problems evidenced in the current draft, and double-especially when said owner shuts out constructive input because of an unrelated criticism they didn't like on another page). If you're going to draft an RfC and refuse others' input, don't advertise the RfC and it's talk page, FFS. It's another form of trap. While I've raised admin-behavior issues in the above, I don't expect or seek them to result in anything but an admonition, and am entirely willing to ignore the hypocritical "maliciously false accusations of bad faith" nonsense as long as it doesn't recur. I did finally hear back from BHG in e-mail (after both the ANI an this AN were open), and it just repeated the exact same assumption of malice. I objected to it again on AGF grounds, and will trust (AGF!) that this will be the end of it. Sorry this is long, but I'm done for the day and may not participate tomorrow due to off-site duties, so I need to make my case now all in one go. I'm not going to pore over all of BHG's even longer post above. My diffs show what they show. Timestamps don't lie. In skimming it, it looks like a bunch of "It was okay to do what I did because I was angry and thought I was being ignored" handwaving; it's {{em|not}} okay, and that's not an excuse.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 03:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
			Hi, This is now in the public domain in France, but I can't move this file to Commons because the first version is hidden. Please help. Thanks, ] (]) 14:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	::{{yo|SMcCandlish}}, more bad faith nonsense.
			:], I've deleted the hidden revision, you should be able to move it now.<span id="Masem:1735741442015:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 14:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
	::# It is entirely reasonable of me to assume that an editor who is active posting on the pages of someone with whom they have had a disagreement reads their notifications. If you did not follow the notfication to stay off my talk page, that was your choice to ignore something pertinent.
	::# I have engaged in no gaming and no baiting. That is yet more of your malicious nonsense. At no point did I invite your comments on the draft, and you posted the on a page which contained a very clear notice to post unless invited, with a list of who was invited which did not include your name
	::#At no point did I {{tq|"banned" me from her talk page then making repeated demands I take something from the draft RfC talk page to her talk page}}. I quoted to you repeatedly the notice at the top of the age on which you had been posting uninvited. It did rescind the ban.
	::#SMcC claims {{tq|If you're going to draft an RfC and refuse others' input, don't advertise the RfC and it's talk page}}. I did NOT advertise it; I mentioned its existence in one-to-one conversation, in the interests of transparency.<br/>If I told you where you my house is, would you interpret that as a license to push your way in past the notice saying "not unless uninvited" and then throw a tantrum if you were asked to leave? That is exactly what you did there.
	::If you actually care about a {{tq|neutral, policy-compliant, sensibly worded RfC}} ... then please find within yourself the integrity to acknowledge that:
	::* that is precisely the aim I set out at the top of the draft
	::* That I have not acted unilaterally, and specifically asked editors to work me on the precise basis that they disagree with me. That is all set out publicly
	:: I do not actually believe your belated claim that your concern is about the RFC. What I see is a rude editor who repeatedly misrepresented what I had written, maliciously accused me of acting in bad faith ... and has now thrown the absolute mother of all bogus accusation FUD temper-tantrums because (surprise! surprise!) the editor who he maliciously accused of bad faith doesn't want to work with him.
	::We are all volunteers here, SMcC. If you come to any editor or admin's talk, make outrageous and malicious allegations of bad faith, then do you really really expect to be asked to join a collaboration which had ''already'' been chosen to keep numbers low and views balanced? Really? Staggering sense of entitlement.
	::Sleep it off, SMcC. --] <small>] • (])</small> 04:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
	=== Help with unlinking ===		== an obstacle to translation ==
			{{Atop|This does not require administrator intervention.--] (]) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	Now that the number of deletions is going up, is there any way using a bot to remove the resulting redlinks from the articles and templates that link to the deleted portals? Twinkle doesn't really do the job, because it leaves a non-link on the template or in the article's See also section, which doesn't really seem to make sense (see {{t|Agoura Hills, California}} for Twinkle's result). This will become important if the X3 prposal gains consensus. Ideas welcome. ] (]) 06:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	:Have you tried ]'s ]? It's better than Twinkle, though it too may leave the non-link on the template I guess. ] (]) 05:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			I was going to translate the article ] into Persian. While translating, I noticed that the title of the article and some of its content about the Persian Misplaced Pages were not cited. I contacted the author (])of the article but have not received a satisfactory answer yet. Please look into the matter. ] (]) 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	== HuffPost article on WP COI editing ==
			{{Abot}}
			== Incivility at ] ==
	Thanks to {{u|JamesG5}} I bumped into this HuffPost article of yesterday (or today depending on your timezone). It is dedicated to a particular COI editor on WP:
			@] 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)
	* {{cite news | url=https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225 | title=Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Misplaced Pages Pages. And it almost always works. | date=14 March 2019 | publisher=] | author=Ashley Feinberg}}
			:This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Does it offer ideas for anything actionable? — ]&nbsp;] 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
			:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*So long as he has disclosed and not directly edited pages, there's nothing we can do. If someone wants to change the policy to be stricter and prohibit it completely, I'll be the first to support, but I don't think we have that consensus yet (though I believe we eventually will. Also, note I'm talking about PR nonsense, not Wikipedians-in-residence, which is always a sticking point.){{pb}}I'll add that articles like this make us look ridiculous and that our official begrudging acceptance of disclosed paid editing is even more of a threat than undisclosed paid editing because it ruins our reputation when major media outlets runs stories like this.{{pb}}Finally, I'll put my 2¢ in that admins and others should not let declated paid editors do what I refer to as ''TOU bludgeon'': declaration is the minimum required to edit. It is not a free pass to spam. ] is still local policy and if someone openly declares themselves a spammer and the content matches, they should be indefinitely blocked without warning. ] is very much a thing, and just because spam doesn't look like it did in 2005 when out policies were written, doesn't mean that our policies don't apply. ] (]) 00:14, 15 March 2019 (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)
	::{{u|TonyBallioni}} I completely and passionately agree with your last paragraph. However, If a media organization wants to take issue with the calls we make on controversial topics they can and they will and we might not come out the otherside so great - they're tough areas for a reason. The fact that we have transparency means we can, if we want, revisit any of these editorial decisions. If there was no declaration those changes would be made and we wouldn't know or be any wiser and the community would have no option to re-evaluate the thinking. There are no good decisions for us to make here only least awful ones. Best, ] (]) 00:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
			:This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Which headline makes us look more like fools:
			::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::#''''
			:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::#''''
			::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::The first headline is about Orangemoody. The second one is about someone following our TOU and policies. Anyone who has ever worked a day in a marketing department can tell you which headline they'd prefer.{{pb}}This is significant because we've fought for years to have our credibility accepted. I'm ''not'' saying that this is worse ethically than Orangemoody. Of course it isn't. I am saying that to the general public, this looks significantly worse. In Orangemoody, we were the heroes: fighting a bad guy scamming people out of their money. Here we are the bureaucrats that allow Big Tech to whitewash their own articles.{{pb}}Regardless of what the ''actual'' impact is on individual articles, the perceived impact is worse from declared PR editing, and that in turn makes all of the featured articles on notable topics that are extremely well researched worth less to the reader.{{pb}}I'm well aware that these are tough calls, but I'm saying that the community does need to consider perception here, and the perception from "white hat" editing on the outside is worse than some of our biggest sockfarms. I don't want an RfC on this now, but I do think it is something that is missing from community discussion on the topic, which is why I'm raising it. ] (]) 00:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
			::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::Not to detract from TonyBallioni's points, but just to answer one of the original questions of whether there is anything actionable, I didn't see such a thing. Problematic, sure. Actionable? Well, since the editor in question responds reasonably to comments, I don't see anything in particular right now. HuffPo also I feel is being a bit misleading. Regarding the Oppenheimer/Farrow thing, for instance, looking back, the section we had in his article was completely inappropriate for a BLP given what the sources actually stated. If what was previously written were verifiable, then those sources should have been added if the content was to stay like that. The wall-o-texts that HuffPo complains about don't seem big to me. And whether an article on a website needs to mention a criminal complaint against the founder is a completely ordinary coat rack discussion. Well, I guess '''CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES''' is more compelling clickbait than '''Several companies pay Misplaced Pages editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Misplaced Pages's own policies.''' ] (]) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (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)
	::::I don't think today's headline is worse for us than and at least today we can decide if the changes really were policy compliant or not. Best, ] (]) 01:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
			::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::Damn, what's next? Soon they'll discover that I've been taking millions to edit Intel articles. THE JIG IS UP ] (]) 02:06, 15 March 2019 (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.
	::::::Millions?! I only get a few rubles! You need to hook me up.{{wink}} ] ]) 02:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
			: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)
	::::::Bedoel je niet wij, {{u|Drmies|goede dokter}} ;-). ] (]) 02:12, 15 March 2019 (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)
	:::::::Nice try, Tony, but that you are me (I?) is only a rumor on Reddit, and at any rate I AM NOT SHARING THE MILLIONS I GOT FROM INTEL FOR EDITING THAT ARTICLE WITH YOU. Damn I hope that that person who exposed me AS A PAID EDITOR FOR INTEL doesn't read this. ] (]) 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
			:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
			:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Back on point, while I agree the headline isn't great for Misplaced Pages, making policy in response to headlines is a slippery slope that I, for one, don't want to embark upon. Of course HuffPo is going to write the most sensational headline they can coin out of a relatively scant set of facts. I'm not really convinced that there is a lot in the story we should be worried about, which just leaves the headline. If you're looking for headlines critical of Misplaced Pages handling of material, there are plenty out there and they really do affect our credibility with a big section of the population; we shouldn't make policy in response to those headlines, either. ] (]) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
			:Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::The headline itself is useless, but the rest of the text could possibly be of use for those who want to take a look at the mentioned articles. ] (]) 12:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	: Just to make it clear, we are talking about {{noping|BC1278}}--] (]) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)		*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: And I think the question the HP asks in our language would be whether their actions are compatible with ].--] (]) 15:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	:Hi. BC1278 here. Overwhelmingly, my Request Edits are made through a Request Edit flag. The format is usually very concise, as suggested by ], a frequent reviewer to the Request Edit queue: e.g. ], ]. The "wall of text" complaint the author of the HuffPo column picked up on happened in an article about ] during extended discussions about controversial issues with multiple RfCs. The consensus decisions ultimately reached by independent editors were not remotely like my original proposed edits, as the HuffPost author falsely implies. Instead, independent editors did their job and came to their own conclusions. One outcome of participating in a couple of these very contentious discussions was a chat last year with DGG, who advised me that he had learned over the years there's very little advantage in getting involved in debates after you've made your point once - you're not going to convince people to change their minds anyway. I have tried to adopt his style since. The HuffPost column is focused on a few high-profile media-related Misplaced Pages articles which involved public controversies (the author's beat), rather than how I conduct myself on Misplaced Pages in general. It's click bait. It is also rife with mistakes and misleading statements too numerous to explain here. I am going to ask for HuffPo for multiple corrections. For example, she ignores that I was the editor who suggested expanding into a robust paragraph, the few words mentioning the Matt Laeur firing on ], despite the subject being very unflattering to them. But I wanted the NBC News article to be up to date anyway. The HuffPo author cherry picked one sentence she didn't like in my proposed edit, even though, as per a normal independent review, another editor chose to use entirely different language than anything I submitted (and I added words of encouragement, saying it was well done.) ] Her example of alleged canvasing are notifications to editors who had already participated in extended discussions on ] that more discussions were continuing in a new RfC. If she looked carefully, she would have seen that I notified (or tried to) all the recent editors, including those who opposed my proposals previously, such as ]. This was my first RfC and to me, there appeared to already be consensus, when JytDog re-opened the question as a new RfC. I thought the previous editors discussing the same matter should be notified again. Today, having been through a few, I would have added all the notifications right on the RfC page, to be transparent, and let others double check I didn't mistakenly leave anyone out. Or, to be honest, I just wouldn't bother to notify anyone - at the time, I didn't know how RfC editors were even called upon.] (]) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278
	::FYI, if you'd like to know what its like to field inquiries from prominent organizations, PR firms or individuals who think articles about them have problems, or want a new article, many balk when I tell them how I work - with full disclosure of COI as a paid editor and submitting all suggested edits for independent review. They don't want to take the risk of appearing in articles like the one by HuffPo. So I turn down their business, as my entire premise is that I do "white hat" work, only for those who want to follow the rules. Sometimes, a few months or a year down the road, I check to see if the articles of those who chose not to work with me nonetheless were edited or published as they wanted -- and it's usually the case they have been, but never with a public disclosure of COI or prior review. As the editing is anonymous, I can't be sure what happened, of course. I do know it will be more difficult to get subjects to publicly disclose because of this article, but it won't slow down the organizations/individuals from violating Misplaced Pages policy and making direct edits. Not in my experience. Only a much more radical change will solve the problem -- for example, the elimination of anonymous editing, with all user accounts requiring a LinkedIn profile. Then, COI and agenda editing will be more obvious. It would also go a long way toward solving the civility issues. But given the sanctity of anonymous editing on Misplaced Pages, I guess it isn't viable.] (]) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278
	:::Hi guy here who thinks you're right that UPE is worse. But do you understand why as a volunteer how your 700+ words are troubling and could be seen as ]ing this conversation in contradiction of ]. Best, ] (]) 21:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::Yes. Sorry/ I re-read it a bunch of times to try to cut it. But I'm responding to a major press article that made a slew of misleading and inaccurate statements about me, personally, and that now seems to be swaying discussion on Misplaced Pages policy itself. For four years, I've worked to convince organizations and PR firms to abide by COI disclosure rules because that's what Misplaced Pages has decreed is kosher Someone from the Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly stand up to this young media reporter who thinks UPE is more ethical than declared PE or declared COI editing. That's what this author is explicitly saying! I received calls and emails from major PR agencies all day -- if this is the new normal, they're going to direct business away from the "white hats." There are board meetings taking place next week to formalize this, affecting some of the largest corporations in the world. Unless something changes, the outcome will be a lot more business for "black hats."] (]) 04:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)BC1278
	*I mean, yeah, it does. BC1278 is alleged to be a serial POV-pusher and professional whitewasher, who ] to get his edits through with a combination of relentless ] and ]. That's extremely alarming and I was ready to crucify this guy. I was even pissed to see the lighthearted reactions above. But, when you actually examine the article, I'm not seeing any violations. In fact, I'm not really seeing anything of major concern. The article itself seems to quietly concede that he doesn't actually violate any policies. In fact, it comes across as extremely misleading and obviously written by someone who doesn't understand Misplaced Pages at all. He "spent over a year lobbying" for the creation of ]? Come on, he created it as a draft and got it approved through the AfC process, not because he's some relentless lobbyist. Relentless bludgeoning, based on ]? Really? He's literally just discussing something in the discussion section, because he was refraining from !voting. Obviously the writer has never witnessed true bludgeoning. Canvassing? The supposed incidents of "canvassing" are usually explained as simply being notifications to relevant users who are involved in some way, such as WikiProject members. I have not seen any refutations of that point. I mean, one of the warnings cited was literally for notifying the ''only'' other contributor to an article about a deletion discussion. There's nothing even particularly unreasonable about that. Most of the supposed "whitewashing" seems to be mundane matters that don't harm articles at all, if not actual improvements, like making articles better comply with BLP. "It almost always works"? Uh, yeah, if you're in compliance with policies and are making reasonable requests that are being vetted by established editors who decide to approve them, then good for you, you're not terrible at what you do. It certainly isn't because the community has no problem with paid COI editors, on the contrary, they're among the most stigmatized editors within the community. This article seems to be little more than an unfortunate piece of trumped-up clickbaity garbage, and I actually feel bad for the paid editor here. I hope both the editor and the Foundation will push back in some way. If COIN wants to do an in-depth investigation of this editor, that's perhaps a reasonable reaction, but based solely on the allegations and supporting evidence presented in the article, which, I assume was the worst they could find, there's nothing actionable there. ] ] 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	::{{u|Swarm}} I have spent some time examining this user's editing. I think on the whole I agree with your analysis. But even in that rather long analysis above you're still about 55% as verbose as {{u|BC1278}} is in his response here. I think given PAYTALK, which I value as a volunteer editor, he could learn how to be more concise. The problem with him at Oppenheim, as I see it, isn't with the RfC, it's with what came . Similar verbose behavior can be seen at other of his . I compare that to who accomplishes their work in a far more concise manner. But to emphasize I think that the HuffPo article, like much of the media commenting on Misplaced Pages practices, gets things wrong, and in this case does so with a clear agenda in mind. Best, ] (]) 22:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	:I think that there is a "money is bad" mentality that induces people into writing articles of debatable accuracy about paid editing on Misplaced Pages. In a way it's similar to the POV-pushing process. I agree that the "bludgeoning" there isn't, plenty of people write mildly detailed arguments. And if memory serves this would be far from the first time where a news article about Misplaced Pages has turned out to be partially or mostly wrong. Some caution is due before citing newspaper articles about Misplaced Pages as arguments for a policy change or on-wiki action. ] (], ]) 21:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Thanks {{u|Swarm}} for taking time to go through the edit history and this way answering my original question.
	: As to COI editing, {{u|Jo-Jo Eumerus}} has put it right. We often distrust those who have vested financial interest in what most of us are doing for free, ''ergo'', in our view, selflessly.
	: Hopefully, in the longer run, common sense will prevail. Maybe a day will come when for example we will allow company infoboxes to be edited by company staff, or person infoboxes by article subjects. Until we find an open and transparent way of managing COI, we will see articles like the HuffPost piece. — ]&nbsp;] 00:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	::{{u|Swarm}}, {{u|Barkeep49}}, {{u|Jo-Jo Eumerus}}, {{u|Kashmiri}}, {{u|Ymblanter}}, {{u|GoldenRing}}, {{u|TonyBallioni}}, {{u|PackMecEng}}, {{u|Drmies}}, ] and anyone I missed here: Given the subject of the Request Edit here ] and the already removed language from (editors using this HuffPo article to include accusations of Misplaced Pages impropriety in the WP articles about the organizations mentioned), would it be possible for an official consensus as to whether this article is or is not a reliable source for alleging paid editing impropriety such that it can be included in the Misplaced Pages mainspace articles about or related to the organizations highlighted in HuffPo? Or, whether the article is reliable in general? This is going to repeat over and over.] (]) 23:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::I'd say it's reasonably reliable for ''alleging'' (by which I mean "according to HuffPost" or whatever) paid editing impropriety, but will currently probably fail on ]/] (and maybe ], depending on use) aspects. I was thinking of ], but it seems a little weak on it's own. HuffPost is not ''Daily Mail'', but it's not ''Washington Post'' either. ] (]) 07:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	* Speaking of ] (]) 04:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*If you're implying that's an example of "bludgeoning", then no. In fact, based on the above, the user presents a perfectly reasonable case. If anyone is unclear on what "bludgeoning" looks like, check out the discussions I collapsed at ]. If you're really a glutton for punishment, keep scrolling past that. Eventually, you may reach the bottom of the page. ] ] 20:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Maybe you missed the part of those 572 words where he asserted AN consensus that HuffPo is not a reliable source? That's a misrepresentation at best, and the whole thing is a classic example of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. ] (]) 01:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
	*We should at least say "paid editors are not to directly edit articles"... Even info boxes maybe problematic as they try to exaggerate the number of employees ect. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	*This part concerns me:
	:{{tq2|Posts calling attention to Sussman’s ] rarely stay up for more than a week. According to his Talk page history, Sussman deletes criticism frequently and any record of it in his user logs often gets buried by his ].}}
	:Should paid editors be restricted from deleting other editors' comments from their user talk page? Combing through a is unnecessarily arduous, and the status quo hinders oversight from other editors by allowing important discussions to be obscured. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 10:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	::I don't see this incident going away anytime soon. A new discussion was started at ANI just today: ]. What I find most offensive to those of us who edit for free, and worse, what may prove damaging to WP in the long term, are sites like and the claims they make while marketing their business. I don't know how long volunteers can be expected to keep working for free in order to make an article encyclopedic and compliant with our PAGs knowing it's for the benefit of paid editors. Think about that for a minute. Our own paid editing/COI PAGs lack common sense. So paid editor John Doe gets a nice check for $400+/- (probably a great deal more if worth their salt) to write/protect an article but unpaid editors are actually the ones writing the article for them. How is this not insanity? ] <sub>]</sub> ] 00:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::It's insane that Misplaced Pages's rules are that you cannot be paid to edit an article, you can only be paid to get unpaid volunteers to edit the article for you. ]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">]</span> 02:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::I highly agree with ] and ]. Why should volunteers edit an article for someone getting paid wads, while us volunteers get paid nothing at all? While I understand that we've opted to keep ''some'' COI editing aboveboard instead of outlawing it and just driving paid editing underground, paid editing is still highly problematic. ] <sup>]</sup>] 03:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::I don't begrudge the way any person makes an honest living, and if a paid editor is complying with policy, they're doing nothing wrong in my book. The policies are kafkaesque, but that's the inevitable result of trying to police editors instead of edits. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 04:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Nor do I, Levivich, but it's wrong to do it at the expense of volunteers who are committed to building a free knowledge-based encyclopedia. The marketing material of companies like is an insult to everything WP represents. Phrases like ''"We Bullet-Proof Your Misplaced Pages Presence"'', and ''"Misplaced Pages is a byzantine labyrinth of policies, guidelines and internal politics"'' are far from flattering to the project and its volunteers. Paid editing changes the landscape and the very definition of ''knowledge-based encyclopedia'' and converts it to a ''Whose Who in business''. Catch phrases like {{xt|"We use sophisticated strategies and our knowledge of the complex rules to get results}} is an insult - "get results"?? And what results might that be? When a company is notable enough to be included in WP, a volunteer (typically patrons or fans) will eventually write the article. To do otherwise weakens the very foundation WP is built on. I can't help but wonder how much money paid editing actually diverts away from {{u|Jimbo Wales|Jimbo's}} fund drives and the much needed contributions that keep this project alive. Why should companies contribute to WMF when they're paying an independent company to write/oversee their articles? I truly believe this is something WMF needs to carefully reconsider, but I'm only one voice. Perhaps the time has come for WMF to pay its own select group of qualified editors to work exclusively on business/corporate articles, and keep that money going to the project instead of independent companies, unless the goal is to grow, support and protect the cottage industries that are sprouting up around us. I shudder to think all the time and energy that is being devoted to COI by editors like {{u|Doc James}} and the volunteers he's worked with is for naught, or worse, driving COI editors to become/work with independent companies at the expense of other WP volunteers. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 12:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	*This "Should paid editors be restricted from deleting other editors' comments from their user talk page?" by ] is an excellent suggestion. They can use automated archiving but Talk pages are here to improve Misplaced Pages so they do not belong to any single editor. ] (] · ] · ]) 12:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
			== Request removal of PMR/Rollback ==
	If I were making the rules here, I'd require all new corporate articles to be moved immediately to draft space and EC-protect the creation of each title in main space, forcing each new corporate article to go through review. If the paid editor has to wait for it, that isn't our problem. If disclosed paid editors complain, that also isn't our problem. I would also EC-protect any approved/established corporate article in main space, to force the PR folks to request changes on the talk page. These rule changes wouldn't have any effect on long-term paid editors with a long contribution history, but this would likely eliminate a lot of the undisclosed paid crap. I mean, we have these tools already, let's stop whining about the situation and use them. ~] <small>(])</small> 04:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	*How come this guy hasn't been blocked indef? It is most detestable and ''infuriating'' to have the fruits of our volunteer labor ripped by these paid editors walking away with swathes of cash. Another second that these parasites are accomodated here is an insult to us all. Concur with talk page post removal restrictions at the very least. ]]] 19:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	*: Because he hasn't broken any policies? We cannot and will not simply block someone because you don't like what they do. This was not a ban discussion, by the way; it's a discussion about a HuffPo article. ] (], ]) 20:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	*Random thought bubbles - would general sanctions work for some subset of articles prone to paid editing (say the highest risk topics: advertising, marketing and public relations or leveraged financial products targeted at retail investors)? Can we repurpose existing DS regimes to the same effect (], ] in particular)? The quality of cryptocurrency articles has improved since ] was put into place, but sometimes I feel tired keeping up with the influx of SPAs. ] 21:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:{{u|MER-C}} I agree that Crypto has improved since GS. However, I don't know that advertising, marketing, and public relations are the topics most likely to have UPE and so I don't know that we could define this in a way that would make GS possible in this area given the broad scope of topics which potentially have UPE as it encompasses biographies, companies, and products. Best, ] (]) 04:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::Advertising is high risk because that's what spammers do. If they get the idea that we tolerate them creating articles about themselves and their companies, then it is not a stretch that they think we tolerate them creating articles about their clients. I also forgot we have ] for biographies. ] 09:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	== Block appeal ==
	Could someone please take a look at ]? Thanks! --] (]) 20:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	:I would expand that request to any open unblock request(]); we're getting a bit backed up. Some of them are repeats that I can't review again or checkusers where a checkuser is needed. I understand we are all volunteers here; this is just a request. Thanks ] (]) 20:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
	*I'll just mention that Sotuman's block is an arbitration enforcement sanction. That means "no administrator may modify without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA". The enforcing admin was ]. So if anybody wants to unblock Sotuman, they need to either get agreement from JzG or consensus for it either here or at ] or ]. ] &#124; ] 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC).
	*{{ping|JzG}} You appear to have blocked this user indefinitely as an arbitration enforcement action. This is not a valid enforcement action - AE blocks can only be up to one year in duration. I guess strictly speaking this means any admin is free to undo the block after its first year. ] (]) 12:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
	----
	<small>''Copied from ]:'' ] ] 20:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)</small><br>
	The reason for the indefinite block is enforcement of an indefinite topic ban. The block is no longer necessary for the following reasons:
	:#'''Understands reason for ban:''' ] am promising to not perform the same edits that resulted in the topic ban and the topic ban violation.
	:#'''Past Contributions:''' My , including a couple of created pages, shows that I am motivated and able to contribute to the article space. It was only on February 9, 2019, that I started to delve into the talk pages and began to learn about consensus and policies, after noticing that some of my editing was being reverted for what seemed like no reason. So even though I've been a registered user since 2007, there is a learning curve for editors that I was not aware of and need to adapt to.
	:#'''Aspirations:''' I have recently renewed my library card which allows me to have full access to online scientific journals, not just the abstract. So now, I can add article content saying exactly what the source says. I also have a camera to take pictures to add to articles. Below is a list showing some of the articles unrelated to the banned topic of ] that I would like to work on in the 3 to 6 month period between being un-blocked and appealing the topic ban.
	:#* ]
	:#* ]
	:#* ]
	:#'''Conclusion:''' There has been some lively back-and-forth between myself and other users on my talk page and on other article talk pages which is probably not necessary to slog through. Suffice it to say that it seems I have rubbed some in this community of Wikipedians the wrong way, and I am truly sorry for that. I would like to apologize to ], whom I compared to Gollum, and also to everyone else, to whom it may have seemed that I thought I was better or smarter than them. This is only a result of foolish human pride, from which I am certainly not immune. Basically, I do have a lot of respect, and gratitude for everyone who has chosen to interact with me, because it gives me opportunities to learn new things, which I enjoy very much.
	<p>] (]) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - While this seems fairly uncontentious, the blocking admin seems to be away and there's no guarantee he'll be back to approve it anytime soon. So, we might as well get started on approving it formally here. ] ] 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support unblock''' with minimal further delay. - Per the reasonable unblock request, and the receptiveness to constructive criticism on their talk page, and the already-existing support from Guy Macon and {{u|Boing! said Zebedee}}. Also, jumping straight to an indef to enforce a minor AE TBAN seems to have been a bit of an overreaction to begin with (technically it's not even supposed to be an ''option''). We're approaching a month blocked already, so they have sufficiently "served their time" for the violation at this point. ] ] 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*{{re|Swarm}} JzG's user page gives general permission for administrators to overturn his blocks if they think the issue is resolved, though whether this meets the "explicit prior affirmative consent" requirement of ] not certain, in my view. I've emailed Guy to ask if he can look in briefly here to opine. ] (]) 10:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
	:I never had a problem with that Gollum thing, so: apology accepted. --] (]) 06:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support not withstanding AE''' - taking your word that the AE issues are moot (either by 1 year max or general permission granted), then this seems a fairly uncontentious unblock as noted by {{noping|Swarm}}. ] (]) 10:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Support unblock''' both per the appeal and as the original was invalid as an AE action. It's been two weeks since JzG has edited <s>and I think we've exhausted avenues to contact him (unless someone else is in contact off-wiki) so I think we need to proceed with this here</s>. ] (]) 12:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	:*Speak of the devil and he appears ... I've now had an email from JzG confirming he won't have time to look at this but he's okay with an unblock so long as the TBAN remains. I'm going to unblock on this basis. ] (]) 15:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''comment''' Stop wringing your hands people. JzG wont mind good faith stuff that admins do in his absence, noting his automatic permission noted on his notes to fellow admins. Also, I've informed him off wiki. -] ] 12:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	== ] ==
	{{atop		{{atop
			| result = Flags removed ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	| status =
	| result = Was blocked ({{logid|97905313|log}}) --] (]) 06:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC) {{nac}}
	}}		}}
	*{{userlinks|Antolepore}}
			Hi, lately, I haven't been using my page-mover and rollback rights that often and I don't feel returning to the activity anytime soon. Can any admin remove these flags from my account. I relatively happen to support in file-renaming areas these days and have also decided to put in some efforts in this month's NPP backlog. So these rights should stay. Thank you. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>] ] 10:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Seems like ] --] ] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> 22:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
			:{{done}}. ] (]) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
	???? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			{{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)
	:Blocked. Yeah, that was inevitable. FYI, this probably should have gone to ], but it's fine. ] (]) 22:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== Appeal of topic ban from 2018 ==
	== Closing panel needed for ] ==
			{{atop|There is consensus to remove this topic ban reached as part of an unblock. Closer's note: as a contentious topic if disruption were to happen again any uninvolved administrator could reimplement the topic ban. ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	{{Initiated|18:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)|type=RfC}} Would a panel of three experienced editors (or administrators if they so choose) please assess the consensus at ]? The closure will be a bit of a minefield, with many simultaneous discussions taking place in the various sub-sections. The closure is already overdue since the closure date was set as 17 March and listed at the top of the page from the outset, a date which has now passed. This RfC was conducted in accordance with the following ARBCOM motion: , and its closure should conform to the motion as well. Closers might want to additionally take a look at discussions on the corresponding talk page for the RfC ]. - ] (]) 11:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
			In January 2018 (I believe), I was topic banned from editing articles related to ] due to a number of idiotic edits that violated BLP. The UTRS ticket for this I believe is . In the time since then, I have demonstrated that I can edit Misplaced Pages constructively (I have 80,350 edits, a large number of which will be on BLP and BLP-related topics), and so I am requesting for this topic ban to be revoked. Whilst I do not plan to make large edits on Donald Trump articles, I would like to have the ability to edit articles on current US events from time to time e.g. to comment on them at ] where Trump-related article nominations often appear. Please could you consider removal of this editing restriction? Courtesy ping to {{U|Alex Shih}} who implemented the topic ban in the first place . ]] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	: {{In progress}} Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus. {{On hold}} Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] ☕ ])</span> 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
	:{{ping|QEDK}} I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --] (]) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)		:For what it's worth, Alex Shih was removed as an administrator in 2019 and has not edited since August, 2022. ] (]) 17:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I'd generally support this. Joseph's topic ban from ITN/C and related pages was lifted more than a year ago, and there haven't been any problems in that area, so I have some optimism that this topic ban is also no longer needed. --] (]) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: {{ping|DannyS712}}: sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. ] ] 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
			::I'm a little concerned that after the big mess in 2018 they still managed to get themselves blocked again in 2022. But, yeah, as Floq says, they seem to have moved past that and have a year's worth of productive editing now. They also seem to understand what got them in trouble in the first place, so I'll cautiously endorse lifting the TBAN. It needs to be understood, however, that with this much history if there's more problems I don't expect there will be much willingness to extend any more ]. ] ] 21:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} His level of contribution seems adequate to me, despite the 6 month period his account has been active. - ] (]) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::Endorse lifting TBAN per above. ] (]) 23:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::: He seems to me like an editor who has been racking up a high edit count by means of a lot of routine gnoming work in the areas of XfDs, responding to edit requests and the like, but no substantial content maintenance experience in politically sensitive areas, and nothing I can find that shows him deeply engaging with complex policy issues. Sorry, but no. ] ] 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 02:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::::: I probably should not have an opinion as someone who is volunteering as one the closers but I do agree with FPAS' viewpoint that editors might regard Danny as inexperienced due to their relative inexperience in edits and age. I'm moving this to the main AN noticeboard for more visibility — and more opinions as to who should be part of the closing panel; and an opportunity for editors to opine on the suitability of editors. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] ☕ ])</span> 12:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::Endorse removal of topic ban per ]. ] (]) 02:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Since this is an area that has long been contentious where arbcom has ruled, we should have closers who are quite experienced, including in arbcom remedies, and neutral. I would prefer at least two of them be admins. ] (]) 14:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	: <s>I can be on a panel (I did not look at the RfC and will not look until the panel has been formed).</s> I am afraid we need even three administrators to avoid unnecessary drama after the close (no disrespect to non-admins who already volunteered).--] (]) 13:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::: Sorry, have to withdraw, overloaded at work in the coming weeks.--] (]) 16:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	::I support the need for three very experienced editors to do the close, especially those experienced in areas of high controversy. Sorry, @], but I don't think that's yet you.
	::I agree with ] that it would be best for all 3 to be admins. --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Yes, I'm surprised that non-admins would be accepted. ], but ] situations are potentially disputable, and this kind of discussion shouldn't give any grounds for procedural objections. ] point 2 reads ''The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial''; an experienced and uninvolved non-admin is just as good as an experienced and uninvolved admin, but I can't quickly imagine a discussion more likely to be controversial than something involving decades of off-wiki international dispute. ] (]) 13:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::] only applies to deletion discussions, but though I don't think the panel has to be all admins, I would agree that the panel should at-least have 2 admins. ] (]) 16:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::No offence intended (and none taken) but I've learnt from personal experience that it is not ], primarily the reason why the RfC was held w.r.t. whether non-administrator closes can be summarily overturned for it being a NAC. As much as we seek to justify it, the underlying point is there is a difference in how we perceive things (and we can see it here). Just to keep things cleaner, if a panel of 3 admins do agree to close this, I will summarily withdraw my name from the current panel as it stands — I am not going to spend my time to debate on this basis. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] ☕ ])</span> 17:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::: Just for the record, if I remember correctly, the Arbcom explicitly changed the wording of that injunction from "administrators" to "editors" while they were voting on it, to make it clear it needn't be all admins. But I'd still appreciate it if we got a panel of highly experienced people with a well-documented level of community trust, admins or not, because it's really going to be a difficult issue. ] ] 18:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Agreed, admins are preferred, but the ARBCOM decision was explicitly specific about not requiring them to perform this closure. The more experienced the volunteers we get the better, regardless of their access level. - ] (]) 00:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::: I'm around for the next few weeks, if this is certain to be resolved in that time frame. However, I'm honestly not 100% sure that I have never weighed in on a discussion relating to the topic. ] ] 00:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
			== User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages ==
	I haven't got any opinion on the admin/non-admin dilemma although panelists should be aware that they take a ] in defining a ''naming'' guideline for a ''naming'' dispute. According to the , they should have a deep knowledge of WP policies and disregard any opinion that doesn't stem from ], ], naming policies and guidelines. It stands to reason this is someone who is very experienced and trusted by the community - those are usually, but not necessarily admins. I'd also like to inform the future panelists that ] to continue the reliable sources research post closure - this resulted in a ] whose purpose is establishing ] each of the respective terminology is used in ]. --] (]) 22:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Given , it appears the OP has withdrawn their complaint. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			<s>I am reporting User:SpiralWidget for repeated vandalism on articles I have created or contributed to. Below is the evidence of their disruptive behavior:
			=== Evidence ===
	:I could likely assist, if desirable. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
			1. – User:SpiralWidget removed sourced content and replaced it with false information. – This is when SpiralWidget first began vandalizing my contributions. He falsely alleged that simply creating a wikipedia article was to influence an election, and even posted a link to a ballotpedia page about an election in 2026 to encourage sabotaging the article. The reason this is concerning, is because the page is general information about Moliere Dimanche, an artist, a prison reform activist, and a litigant who accomplished a presidential case law and wrote a book. Nothing in the page promotes anything election related, and as can be seen in the link, SpiralWidget did not base the reason on anything other than unwarranted suspicions.
	:: Ping me when we're ready to roll. I have a hard deadline of April 16, after which I will be working on a project that will not leave time to participate in complex actions. ] ] 02:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Given the availability of admins, I'll withdraw my name from consideration as a closer. --] (]) 02:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
			2.
	== ] ==
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget removed information from a discussion with Professor Tim Gilmore about Dimanche's high school teacher Mrs. Callahan, and a very effective way she helped students in. English class. Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this and became an outstanding student in Mrs. Callahan's class. SpiralWidget took an issue that is not even contentious and used it to sabotage the article. It is sabotage because Caesar is a play that was actually written by Shakespeare. I don't think any reasonable person would find that as contentious because it was in an English class in high school, and Caesar is just one part of the lessons on Shakespeare. That's like if the interview was about Frankenstein, and the article stated that Dimanche excelled in studying Mary Shelley. It was unnecessary harassment.
	*{{pagelinks|Jexodus}}
			3.
	Administrators and experienced editors are needed at ], which is becoming (surprise, surprise) a POV battleground. ] (]) 15:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			– In this instance, SpiralWidget moved a redirect page to drafts after the article was pointed to a different article using Dimanche's full name instead of his nickname. His reason was so that there could be a discussion, but Misplaced Pages's guidance on this clearly states that a formal discussion is not necessary for redirects, and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy discourages deleting duplicate pages. It even encourages editors to delete entire text and replacing it with redirects. Yet, again, SpiralWidget took it upon himself to allege political motivations, and none of it is true.
	:That one has all the ingredients of a battleground: an alleged combination of Israel, PACS, astroturfing, Russians, Trump links, claims of antisemitism etc. Sometimes I wish that en.wp could just mark such topics as "we're not going there".
	:I see that @] ECP-protected it yesterday, and that this halted the edit war, at least for now. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::There are serious and I think fairly staggering content issues. I've tagged, but this is such a battleground I'm staying away from it. The article needs experienced eyes. ] (]) 16:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	* See also: ]. – ] ] 18:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Needs a DS notice for AP, maybe 1rr, etc. I can't do it now. ] ] 21:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::I've added the DS notice & imposed 1RR, enforced BRD. ] (]) 12:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::I've removed that stupid picture and caption, I don't care a jot either way about the article subject, but Misplaced Pages does not put completely unrelated images into articles just to make bad jokes with a snarky, non-neutral caption; we are better than that, or should strive to be. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em">]+]</u> 12:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::], are you not yourself better enough to engage in a conversation with me about a good faith edit? The Red Sea does not need to be parted to engage in discussion. Misplaced Pages is serious bizness but we don't need to be soulless automatons propping up astroturf campaigns with a veneer of versimiliutude.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::ETA: OK i do see you posted something on the talk page, I just wasn't pinged. Thank you. I would have preferred discussion first since I am concerned that some readers think Jexodus actually exists. I mean, the Exodus probably didn't happen either, but it has some more street cred.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::::It shouldn't require any discussion to point out how blatantly non-neutral the caption and image is. Fish made the right call. When I looked at the old diff I thought I was in a WP:space user essay not the encyclopedia proper. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::::There was nothing in the caption that was incorrect. This is far outside the concerns of this board, and I'm giving up on this one, but when we ask why we have a President Trump, I submit it is because of the million little ways we enable the grifters and liars of the world by not fully eludicating them.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
			4.
	== User talk page redirects to French Misplaced Pages ==
			- After SpiralWidget did that, he then nominated ] for deletion, again alleging that it had something to do with an election for governor in 2026. This is not true. The article talks about Dimanche's humble upbringing, his time spent in prison, his efforts in local politics in Orlando, his art, and a case law he helped accomplish in the 11th Circuit that set precedent regarding the ]. And even if it did, Misplaced Pages has many candidates for office. Misplaced Pages even displays election results, gains by party affiliation, laws introduced, and many other accolades. This is what makes me believe SpiralWidget has some type of animus for Mr. Dimanche, because he constantly makes an issue out of the election, when the article does not focus on that at all.
			5.
	*{{Userlinks|Koui²}}
			- The vandalism didn't stop there. SpiralWidget then went to ] and nominated that page for deletion as well. Why, because Dimanche was a part of that case. He lied and said that the case was not notable, before asserting that it only made Dimanche look good. This is ridiculous and appears to be hateful. This is a case law, meaning it is not something Dimanche had control over at all. Also, the "Precedential Status" of the law is "Precedential". The case has been cited by judges all across the nation to resolve an additional 178 federal cases. To put that in perspective, ] was cited 2,341 times in resolving federal cases since 1973. This is approximately 46 citations per year. Since ] was passed it averages about 20 citations a year. So for SpiralWidget to lie and say that the case is not notable, when clearly, the judge of this country would state otherwise is nothing more than vandalism. Additionally, Misplaced Pages already found all of the related laws and indexed them accordingly.
	*{{pagelinks|User talk:Koui²}}
	Koui²'s redirects their English account's talk page to French Misplaced Pages. This seems against the spirit of guideline ]. The first time I had to leave them a message, I was left with the dilemma of whether to post on their French talk page (where all the page tabs are in French), or just posting on their English talk page. I opted for the latter. The next time I visited their talk page to see if there was any followup, I saw my post blanked, and their talk page again a redirect to French Misplaced Pages. I removed the redirect and expalained my rationale of WP:SPEAKENGLISH. However, they reverted it back to a French redirect without explanation.
			] (]) is vandalizing my pages if they even mention Dimanche, and he is doing harm to genuine, good faith editing. I believe the articles about Dimanche are necessary and important because his prison experience is well documented, and his art is unusual. Renown scholars like Tim Gilmore and Nicole Fleetwood have given thoughtful analysis to his art, and the art is widely recognized. I don't think these articles should be nominated for deletion, and I would request that they be taken out of that nomination, and SpiralWidget be prohibited from further editing on the subject of Dimanche.
	Is it reasonable to expect their English Misplaced Pages talk page to not redirect to another language?—] (]) 17:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			6. List affected articles: ], ], etc.
			=== Context ===
	No, this is not ok. If you are going to contribute here you ''must'' be willing to discuss things '''here'''. I will endeavor to make that clear to this individual now. ] (]) 17:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			- This behavior has been recurring since SpiralWidget used the ballotpedia link the first time and persists today.
	:(ec) I was going to say the same thing. You have to be able to discuss with users on THIS project. ] (]) 17:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			- I believe this violates Misplaced Pages’s policies and discourages editors from adding to Misplaced Pages.
	:I don't know about this. I wander around to other Wikimedia wikis and I see a lot of user talk redirects to English Misplaced Pages or Meta. --''']]]''' 17:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::I think that it's okay to ''suggest'' that someone contact you at your home project - I do that on commons and meta myself - but it shouldn't be required. —] (])​ 17:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::To add, I hope that we're not going to start running around and telling cross-wiki users that they must maintain a user talk page here and check it here. For example, the steward ] has a user talk page that redirects to Meta. --''']]]''' 17:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::They shouldn't. If you edit here, why should anyone have to go to awhole other project to discuss your edits here? It's fairly ridiculous. ] (]) 17:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::I agree. You can configure your notifications to work cross-wiki now. A note asking people is one thing, a redirect (unless, maybe, you don't participate on a project at all) isn't good. ] (]) 18:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::So you're saying that just because they are rollbacking edits across many wikis, including enwiki, they have to maintain a user talk page here? This is the sort of behavior that gives enwiki a bad reputation across Wikimedia. --''']]]''' 18:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::If we're just talking about Stewards who don't make "regular" edits here at all, then I think that's fine. That's not what this is. ] (]) 18:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::Thank you for the clarification. --''']]]''' 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	:Has this actually been a problem for any user trying to communicate with ]? ] (]) 17:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::That would be what started the discusion, so I'd have to say yes. ] (]) 17:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::: Mea culpa. Was distracted and missed part of original post. ] (]) 18:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
	::They haven't been here over the last couple of years, but they've also only ever made to their own talk; the last time was . Fyi. ]]] 18:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			I have notified the user on their talk page using ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==
	To be clear, I'm only looking for a resolution here, not some sweeping global enforcement. In this specific case, which I <u>have</u> had to contact the user, the French redirect combined with their lack of response (on slow edit war) is what is problematic. For the next editor who might need to post there, I dont want them to <u>not</u> post due to 1) an impression they are obligated to click on a soft redirect, 2) having to Google translate the French tabs if they dont remember the positions of their English equivalents, 3) feeling like the user is not fluent in English, and consequently feeling obligated to write in French (fearing a possible ]).—] (]) 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:AN-notice-->. I kindly request administrative intervention to address this issue.
			] (]) 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)</s>
	'''Note''': In 2012, the user blanked another editor's post on their talk page with edit summary: {{tq|soft redirect means you should contact me on the French WP. However, I've already witnessed your POV-pushing there|q=y}}.—] (]) 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			:First, you need to read and understand the definition of "vandalism" in ]. Next, you are not allowed to remove properly placed AfD notices until the AfD has been properly closed. I do not see anything improper in Spiralwidget's edits that you linked. I would advise you to drop this complaint and read over our ] before resuming editing. ] 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I agree that there should not be a cross-wiki redirect of any kind. In this particular instance, it might be helpful if an editor/admin fluent in French could explain the situation over at this editors fr-Wiki talk page. Moving forward from this one case, it would probably be of benefit that this issue is raised and discussed with the wider Misplaced Pages community so that we can get it codified that this is not a good thing and is to be avoided. ] (]) 18:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your feedback. I understand that I should not remove AfD notices before they are officially closed, and I will follow the proper procedures moving forward. I will also review WP:Vandalism more thoroughly to ensure I’m taking the correct steps in addressing any inappropriate edits. I appreciate your advice and will proceed accordingly. ] (]) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	**FWIW, ] also says: {{tq|Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Misplaced Pages should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers.|q=yes}}—] (]) 18:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			:Hi! I feel like I need to weigh in here on my perspective.
	***That guideline is about articles. I generally see no problem with a request for contact on a page where they will see the message sooner - as others have indicated it is not uncommon - I do it myself at e.g. ] where I contribute only very occasionally (I don't speak Dutch). A polite note is preferable to a soft redirect though. ] (]) 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
			:*I was reviewing articles on ] back in September (EDIT: Turns out it was November. Seems like longer ago.) and stumbled upon ], which had been submitted by NovembersHeartbeat (Diff1 in the list above). I then found that he was running for Governor of Florida in 2026, and added a comment on the article pointing this out for future reviewers (as I did not feel strongly about the subject, and I am not so familiar with ], which was the main claim of notability).
			:*Following this, NovembersHeartbeat responded here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3AMoe_Dimanche&diff=1256694716&oldid=1256642401 and accused me of election interference.
			:*I then commented on ] because I felt I needed to respond to this. NovembersHeartbeat then responded negatively, but eventually I decided to leave the issue and bookmark ] on my watchlist in order to follow the conversation from then on.
			:*On 2 January, earlier today, I opened my Watchlist to see that ] had been moved to mainspace by NovembersHeartbeat. I then pressed the "revert" button, which I wrongly assumed would revert the article to draftspace. Turns out, this was not possible because NovembersHeartbeat had NOT published Moe Dimanche as an article; instead, he had made a new article, ], with a new name, in order to get past the AfC process (which was not going well for Dimanche at all...); as a result, the attempted reversion did not work at all. I then decided that, although I believe I was entitled to go for speedy deletion, I would nominate the article for deletion (I still have ] concerns and I don't think he passes ]) and also nominate ], which has also been created by NovembersHeartbeat recently.
			:*In addition, I would like to question whether there is ] going on here. I think a pertinent recent example that looks suspicious to me is the upload of the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Moliere_dimanche.png which was uploaded at 03:26, 1 January 2025 (i.e. 22:26 on 31 December Florida time) by user https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Moe_Dimanche, who I am assuming is the subject himself in the flesh. This was then added to the article in this edit by NovembersHeartbeat https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Moliere_Dimanche&oldid=1266552816 on 04:40, 1 January 2025 (23:40 on 31 December Florida time). This is only slightly over an hour after the file itself was uploaded, at a time when most people were at a New Years Eve party. I am not making accusations here, but I am concerned that Dimanche is having communication with NovembersHeartbeat. Either that, or NovembersHeartbeat is indulging in ]... Would NovembersHeartbeat like to comment on this? ] (]) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Well, I was advised to drop the complaint, but if you still want answers, I don't mind telling you as I have told you before, I do not have any conflicts of interest. Your whole approach to this topic just seems personal. Even here, the content of the article is not in question, the facts are not in question, you just seem to believe that I am the subject. I made this complaint because I feel like what you are doing is harassment, and you might know the subject yourself or have some type of rivalry against him. I thought Misplaced Pages had a mechanism to prevent that, and I was wrong. I don't know what else to tell you. ] (]) 19:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I checked diff 2 in the complaint, and Spiralwidget is correct: the source does not support the text. Spiralwidget was justified in removing it. ]&nbsp;] 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::"Mrs. Callahan would give students key words from the play Caesar, and have them use them in an essay writing contest that was timed. Dimanche excelled at this" is from NovHeartbeats, but none of this is in the source. How does November know so much about how these assignments worked? Was November in the classroom, or is November using sources the rest of us can't see? ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::The exact text from the source is {{quote|"And I had a really good English class back at West Orange High School in Orlando. Ms. Callahan. I couldn’t wait to get to her class. She’d give us a certain amount of time to write a story with keywords from a play we were reading, like Julius Caesar."}} The source says exactly what you just quoted. ] (]) 00:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source says nothing about whether he was good in the class ("excelled") nor does it say "he enjoyed studying Shakespeare". ]&nbsp;] 00:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The source doesn't mention any contests as you seem to know about. And its an interview of Moliere, with two single line questions asked by the interviewer. It definitely doesn't support anything except Moliere saying he had a favorite class, which isn't encyclopedic. ] (]) 00:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			This is discussion is turning into a content dispute, which doesn't belong here. There's a bit of ] going on but right now I don't see a need for admin intervention for either editor. ]] 15:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Meh, don't worry about the redirect. It makes their life easier if they contribute here only occasionally since they then don't have to monitor yet another talkpage. But if the person is editing the English wikipedia at all, they should normally be expected to be able to read English, and their edit summaries show good English. So go ahead and write in English on their fr.wp talk page. ] (]) 03:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
	:The message I eft them said to leave the redirect if they wanted, but if they were going to edit here they needed to be willing to talk here. I feel like that is a fair middle road. ] (]) 04:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::{{re|Beeblebrox}} My main issue is that a talk page version like their don't exactly "welcome" an English post, let alone one on the local English WP site. I'd be OK if the page said something to the effect of "Im more active on the other page. I dont check EN WP often, but you are welcome to post here too." That would be a fair compromise, especially when interwiki notification already exists.—] (]) 10:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::Interwiki notification is optional. I have it turned off for example as I periodically get lots of (mostly but not exclusively) trivial notifications from Wikidata that distract from notifications here (which are almost always significant), so cannot be relied on. Asking people to contact them where they are most likely to see it is not disruptive at all. ] (]) 11:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::If they are likely to come back occasionally, we should be able to communicate with them '''here''' about their actions '''here''' in English. ] ] 15:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::::If they contribute here regularly and significantly, yes. If they only contribute here very occasionally then no, that's not a reasonable requirement. Somewhere between the two then communicating with them in English on their fr talk page is acceptable. For any level of contribution below this being their primary project a note saying that you can leave a message here but you will probably get a quicker response elsewhere is no issue whatsoever. ] (]) 00:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	This is my on the French language Misplaced Pages. It was set up before Global Preferences were enabled and you had to dig a bit to find the preferences. It's easier now, just go to ] and set the language to English. That should make most of the tabs English Then go to your user/talk on Meta and set something like . It will now appear on the talk/user page of any Misplaced Pages, . By the way, I've made some comments on other language Wikipedias (in English) only and not once has anybody put anything like ]. It appears other languages are a bit more forgiving if you don't speak them. ], ], ] 17:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
			While there is a content dispute in play here, I think behavior is a problem as well...but it's largely by the OP. Remarks like " is vandalizing '''my''' pages" ('''emphasis''' added). {{ping|NovembersHeartbeat}}, I would strongly advise that you read ], ], ], and ]. These aren't your pages. Anyone can edit them. If you have a disagreement, then bring it to the talk page. What you are describing as vandalism, is normal editing and disagreement; I would encourage you to ] as they are inherently hostile when unsubstantiated. This is a normal part of the collaborative editing process. If you don't, your complaints will not only be ignored, but ]. I understand that people may feel that some subjects aren't notable to get their own page and nominations for deletion can feel personal. I've weighed in for inclusion on the subject. Try not to take it personally. ] (]) 19:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	*Not too happy with what is apparently their only response to this , to completely reject the idea that they are at all obligated to communicate on this project about their edits to this project, and you ''must'' come over to the French WP to do so. ] (]) 20:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	*:I don't believe there is a policy that forbids having a user talk page on one language wiki forward to the more-regularly used talk page on another language wiki. The soft redirect at ] now says '''Please message me there (either in French or English).''', which seems reasonable enough to me. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em">]+]</u> 10:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:It's probably worth emphasising, though, that editors on en-wp are under no obligation to do as K. requests. If they wish to post ''à la française'', it's up to them; ultimately, though, it is the responsibility of editors to this project (and, I assume, most others) to read if not acknowledge their talk page notices; if they fail to do so...''ça plane pour nous''. ]]] 11:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::Within the limits of ], of course. ] (]) 04:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:{{reply|WhatamIdoing}} WP:VOLUNTEER does not excuse one from reading one's talk page, even if one chooses not to reply. Neither does it excuse a lack of communication. ]]] 06:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	*::It's not been my experience that it's functional to require volunteers to do anything. How exactly would you know whether the talk page has been read? "You have to read this!" misses the point. Nobody has to, and we can't actually force them. The community's practice has been to assume that all users have read all messages on their user talk pages, regardless of whether they actually have, and despite our personal experiences of missing such messages at least occasionally. Perhaps more relevantly, the point in time at which we assume the talk page message was read is approximately around the time of their next edits to this project – which could be days, months, or years from now, or even never. There is not, and never has been, a rule that if I post a message on your talk page that you're required to go to that wiki to read my message before editing some other project. If you exercise your right as a volunteer to never edit here again, then we assume that you never read any subsequent messages here. ] (]) 22:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	::::We should be allowed to leave them messages here about their actions here. If they come back here, we can expect them to have read these messages. If they never do, then we can't, even if they've been elsewhere on the Wikimedia project system.
	::::As to SPEAKENGLISH-type messages, they have the right to leave such messages only if an attempt to communicate with them uses a language they can't reasonably respond in, regardless of which wiki the message was left on. It would be okay for me to leave such a message in response to someone trying to communicate with me in French, which I don't speak (I am FR-0); it would be problematic for me to do so over a message in Hebrew, which I speak natively. ] ] 13:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
			== Repeated tool abuse by ] ==
	== RfC Closure Review (Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race) ==
			{{atop|Not tool abuse. The IPv6 editor should discuss this with FlightTime, not ANI ] ] 06:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			I have been working on the article ] with a view to possibly improving it to featured article status at some point in the future. At this point, the edits are mostly restructuring to bring the article into a shape that can then be further developed, depending what it still needs when that first step is done. {{U|FlightTime}} took exception to some edit I made between 22nd and 23rd of December , without clarifying exactly which edit they thought was problematic. We had , and . At that point, I believed we had cleared the air, and the situation would not repeat itself.
			However, today, they of mine, all in one go, again without any explanation of which edit(s) they felt were problematic. Thus, they make it impossible to discuss or remedy what they felt was the problem. In my opinion, this constitutes tool abuse, and if they cannot improve their communication with IP users and ideally use the tools in a more targeted way, this is a problem for the community.
	I am requesting a review of the closing of ] on the grounds that it is not a reasonable summation of the discussion. My attempt to discuss this with the closer can be found . The RfC takes a look at how the wiki should handle using a transgendered individual's name and is an extention of ]. The close is almost incoherent and makes little sense when you actually read the discussion and take in the view points of those that participated. The last sentence alone makes no sense and is not a representation of the points made in the discussion. The two prevailing viewpoints are 1) to remove ''all'' real names from the articles as they are not included in the credits of the show and are essentially pulled from other sources and 2) to only list the current names of individuals and not the name they used at the time of filming. Most of those supported using their current name supported the idea of removing all the names entirely. Removing real names was not included in the original wording of the RfC but is clearly meant to remove all names from the articles. Removing only the names of transgendered individuals is inappropriate and makes no sense. I request that the community review, revert, and reclose this discussion to represent the consensus that is clearly there. Thanks. ] 04:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	*I happened upon this shortly after closing and so I read the close and then the RfC and was also puzzled by it also not fully understanding what point {{u|QEDK}} was trying to make with ] (which is obviously relevant here). I agree with {{u|Nihlus}} that the consensus, as I see it, is to remove real name from the seasons entirely and to only include their stage names (e.g. how they were referred to on the show). Best, ] (]) 17:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	*I don't read this closure as ''prohibiting'' the removal of all non-credited names from the articles in question. I think the closer intended on answering the original RFC question, which related to trans contestants who transitioned after their TV appearance. ]★] -- 09:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	*:I tried to clarify this with the closer and got no where. The consensus that is reached need not necessarily be a direct response or even a level response to the question asked. ] 10:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	*I would like more participation in this topic before I revert the close myself based on what is here. Thanks. ] 02:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	* (Uninvolved, did not know about the RfC till now): I don't know where to post this, but I agree with Nihlus both on his !vote and its rationale, and his points here in this thread. Plus it's confusing (for the reader) for a WP article on a TV show not to use credited names. ] (]) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			Thank you for your time and consideration, and any help in getting to a more constructive collaboration on this article.
	== Unblock review for Spoonkymonkey ==
	{{resolved|The block timed out. ] (]) 08:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)}}
			] (]) 00:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Per request at ]:{{quote|Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. My edits conform to the arbitration decision, which allows anyone to remove anything that (a) violates BLP policy OR (b) is disportionately negative. My edits were made after a discussion on the talk page. A second editor suggested even more should be cut (the Jimmy Wales material -- see the edit summary on the article page. Complaint was made to arbitrator that I was the victim of harassment (which I have been for nearly two months by Toronto-area IPs), and the admin blocked me. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)}}I can confirm that Spoonkymonkey has been repeatedly harassed by IP editors linking him to the banned users ], ], and ]. Thanks! ] (]) 05:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	*For the record, this post is authored by an editor with: {{tq|2 edits since: 2019-03-25, last edit on 2019-03-25 ; 27 bytes, 0 wikiLinks, 0 images, 0 categories, 15 minutes old}}. I'd like an explanation of how it is that you can confirm anything, given that you've never edited any other Misplaced Pages pages besides this one and your user page. Your account was created four hours after Spoonkymonkey's last edit, which was to make this unblock request, and your second edit ''ever'' was to copy this request here. It'd be nothing short of a miracle for this quacking duck to be a goose instead. ] (]) 05:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	*: The ] test here isn't so obvious, as it may be a duck or a ].] (]) 12:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	::* For a couple of reasons which I won't mention, I also suspect this is a false flag account. ] 12:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' - . There seems to be a discussion at ] and consensus to remove the Police officer bit (or at least no one objected, and one IP supported). The bit on the 1997 court case details is using (in part) - which is a ] violation and should be removed (at least what isn't sourced elsewhere). Spoonkymonkey seems to have been discussing, and the edit leading to their block was 11 days after the prior one.] (]) 12:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	*'''Comment as blocking admin''': the account that posted this is clearly a sock of someone but I’ll explain myself regardless: agree with Icewhiz on the primary source issue, but the claim they’ve been discussing this is a bit much. The only edit they made to the talk page since the full protection was lifted was , which hardly constitutes discussing with other editors on good faith, especially considering that they knew or had cause to know that people objected to their blanking on content, some of which they had previously removed with the reason . As to this being 11 days later; I don’t think that is a good metric here. This article had been under full protection and their fourth edit since the lifting of the protection was to again remove this content without any talk page agreement citing a 2006 arb case to justify a content dispute where there were multiple established editors opposed to their actions. This was after saying when informed of the Gamergate DS, indicating not wanting to follow our established norms of behaviour. Finally, you have to take into account the editing frequency: Spoonkymonkey is not exactly a prolific contributor. This much disruption for the amount of edits meant that when they returned to editing again after being reverted, it was likely that they would continue their slow-burning edit war. A 72 hour block would prevent them from immediately returning to the dispute, and given the controversy here it seems like the type of behaviour the DS system was designed to control. ] (]) 14:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	* '''Good block''' Even if you accept that the user was discussing it, they ''also'' continued edit-warring over it. The fact protection interrupted the edit-war doesn't make that okay. 72 hours seems about right to me; if the user continues, a ban from the article is probably in order. ] (]) 11:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
			: This is not tool abuse, you are being reverted with reasons, and you should discuss the matter with FlightTime. ] (]) 00:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== User blocked in July 2018 asking to be unblocked ==
			:I'm not sure what you mean {{tq|without any explanation}} as his clearly documents his reason as {{tq|Reverted good faith edits by 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk): Unsourced, unexplained content removal, unsourced OR}}. Please note that he did assume good faith (not maliciousness), and that he appears at first glance correct that you were removing content without reason, and adding unsourced and/or original research to the article, which is not permitted. Please use the article talk page at: ] or talk to the editor directly on their talk page at ] and work on building consensus instead of readding the same or similar content to the article. ]&thinsp;] 01:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{atop|Since this user is now checkuser-blocked, the appeal is moot. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)}}
			::Again, which are the pieces that you are now objecting to? We are talking about 17 edits, so please be specific! Thank you. ] (]) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	A few days ago, {{user|Norvikk}} sent me an e-mail asking to be unblocked. The log indicates that this user was blocked indefinitely last July. I'm not familiar with this user's history and do not feel I should be the one to make the decision. However, the user seems sincere in their e-mail and should be considered for the ] in my opinion. I would appreciate it if another administrator could look into this.
			{{abot}}
			== Emoji redirect ==
	Thanks. ] (]) 17:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{atop|👌 - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:I've restored talk page access, so they can make the unblock request there now. I don't think anyone would unblock without hearing from Norvikk directly. --] (]) 17:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
			Was trying to create ] as a redirect to ]; the film does not actually have a title and was represented in posters by the ] aka the ]. Apparently the emojis are on a blacklist, it would be great if someone can create this rd, thanks. ] (]) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{Done}}. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 01:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Courtesy pinging {{u|SQL}}, {{u|Materialscientist}} and {{u|Anna Frodesiak}} – the most recent blocking admins. ] (]) 17:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	:: I interacted with the user previously, and I think their problem is that their command of English is not ideal. They are probably capable of contributing constructively in the narrow topic area they are interested in if they understand very clearly that edit-warring and calling people names is not a valid dispute resolution avenue. They probably need to be advised to take everything to the talk page, and ideally they would get a mentor helping them.--] (]) 17:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
	He's blanked his talk page, which not blanking was a condition of his un-blocking.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	:{{re|Auric}} I'm probably missing something, but I don't see that as an unblock condition. I see someone proposing that as an unblock condition, but I think the unblock went through without it. ] (]) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Okay, I thought it was accepted.--<span style="text-shadow:#FFD700 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">] ]</span> 17:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	*I reblocked Norvikk for socking with {{user2|NavalDirk}}, as well as very heavy block evasion with IPs going back many months.--] (]) 16:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== Topic ban appeal ==
	== ] probably needs to be moved ==
	{{atop|{{Done}} ] (]) 13:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)}}
	This article was moved to the mainspace by its creator. Most likely during the move the creator forgot to move the blackslash and intended to name the article ] instead. The article, however, has been prodded for deletion; so, I'm not quite sure if it's OK to move the page. -- ] (]) 04:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	:Moved to ] since the move summary was "moving notes from sandbox to draft page". ] (]) 06:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Thanks for taking a look at this {{u|Galobtter}}. -- ] (]) 07:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			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)
	== SPI vandal at it again ==
			: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)
	Keep an eye out for anything strange at SPI - I've blocked 4 of these guys so far. Thanks, ]<sup>]</sup> 09:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
			::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	: I'm finding sleepers, so it might be useful to let me (or some other checkuser) know when you find one of these socks. ] (]) 10:31, 29 March 2019 (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)
	::Another - {{user|Kernt329}}. -- ] (]) 13:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Blocked. ] (]) 13:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
			*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
			*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
			*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
	== Category creation ==
			{{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hi - just like Harvard (it even has an article) and Yale have cats for their deans, I am trying to create one for Penn. But can't seem to. Can someone help?
			::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Andra Febrian report ==
	At Category:Deans of University of Pennsylvania Law School.
			"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
			- caused many edit wars <br/>
			- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
			- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
			- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
			I request that the user is warned.
			] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
			:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
	Appreciated. --] (]) 03:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
			:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
	:Done. — ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 13:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
			User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
			'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
			'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
			'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
			'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
			<br/>
			I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
			:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Request to delete & move page ==		== Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan ==
			{{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of ] at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)|Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions}}. ] (]/]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Cannot draftify page ==
	I need to have my user sandbox ] deleted and article ] moved into that same namespace. The article Samuel Hammond Jr. is currently involved in an Afd at ] A user added content to my sandbox that I did not want nor did I give permission to do so. I want to transfer the article into my sandbox in order to retain all edit history of the article and to allow other interested editors to add to the same article. ] (]) 21:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	:I deleted the sandbox. Until the afd is closed the article can not be moved to the sandbox. ] 21:51, 27 March 2019 (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)
	::Thank you. ] (]) 22:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
			:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Article was . ] (]) 01:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Remove PCR flag ==
	== Backlog at page protection noticeboard ==
			{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== "The Testifier" report ==
	Pls see ].--] (]) 02:58, 28 March 2019 (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. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	I don't know why, but I find the last edit/comment rude and irksome, I was wondering if it's possible if an admin could remove it. Cheers. ] (]) 17:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	:No. The edit summary is ok; nothing rude (probably irksome if one strongly feels their edit is unacceptable; but that doesn't seem to be the case here). It's an editorial issue. You could take up the issue of whether their editorial contribution is backed by sources on the article's talk page. If you believe some ] issue is being violated, please point out here clearly what is being violated, and an admin would step in. Thanks, ] 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
			:I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Swap request ==
			::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 ==
	Could someone ]
	:]
	and
	:]
	per ]? I'd do the moves myself but swaps can be tricky for pages with long histories. I'd ask at ] but it can be a bit slow, and the deadline for publication is fast approaching. Thanks. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 23:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
	: {{Done}} —&thinsp;]&thinsp;<small>(]'''·'''])</small> 02:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			] from the past month (December 2024).
	==Topic ban appeal==
			<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
	My topic ban from "''edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan''," was implemented on and today is 29 March 2019. I have not violated the topic ban.
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			] '''Administrator changes'''
	I've been contemplating about this for a while now. I realize the issues with my conduct that led topic ban, i.e. battleground behavior and since getting topic banned I worked to have avoided any circumstances of sanctionable conduct.
			:] ]
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			] '''CheckUser changes'''
	I had appealed the topic ban in ARCA in June 2018 and the mass appeals were declined. I had mailed {{U|GoldenRing}} on December 2018 and appealed the topic ban and he said that he is declining the appeal as he feels that his long absence from Misplaced Pages makes him ill-equipped to assess behavior since the sanction.
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			|]
			}}
			:] ]
			:] ]
			</div>
	I have also worked in other areas constructively during this period while simultaneously avoiding the India Pakistan topic area. I created ] for a name, which was ITN. Topic ban is becoming an impediment in doing more of the same work related to content. I plan to keep editing in such a manner that no one will find my edits objectionable. ] (]) 07:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
			]
			] '''Oversight changes'''
	:As the banning admin, I don't oppose this, but I'm unlikely to have time to have a detailed look through Capitals00's editing history to evaluate their editing since the ban. I can confirm that Capitals00 approached me in December about lifting the ban and that at the time I had been almost completely absent from Misplaced Pages for a period of some months and didn't feel equipped to adequately assess the situation. ] (]) 10:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			:] {{hlist|class=inline
	*'''Support''': Capitals00 has shown himself to be a productive editor and has been an asset to South Asian-related articles on Misplaced Pages. The creation of ] was helpful to the project. Additionally, this user has the skill of identifying sockpuppets (] and ], for example) who edit in this area. Keeping these things in mind, in addition to the fact that User:Capitals00 has not violated his/her topic ban to date, I would recommend that it be removed. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 19:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			|]
	** '''Note''' - I doubt that reporting socks who edit in the topic would be affected by the topic ban, making this claim less relevant. ] ] 10:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
			|]
	*'''Support''' - so in terms of "has the editor contributed positively" - the creation of a decent article, their SPI work and a spot check of other edits would indicate a ''yes''. I'd also make note that they have edited on some other India articles (including some mildly controversial ones) - but nothing that violated their TBAN. As such, there's at least a reasonable prima facie case of sensitive judgement in the area. The TBAN has existed long enough for it to be reasonable to be removed. Notwithstanding anything anyone else comes up with, I'm a clear support. ] (]) 23:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			|]
	*'''Support''' Do not see any issues with removing the ban because of its age and that there have been constructive edits since. ] (]) 23:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			|]
	* '''Support'''. Due to positive contributions elsewhere.] (]) 05:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			|]
	*'''Support''' as requested. I see no issues given the lack of a topic ban violation and continued valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 10:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			}}
			:] ]
			</div>
	== Fake articles ==
			</div>
			] '''Guideline and policy news'''
	The Bulgars (also Bolgars or proto-Bulgarians) were a semi-nomadic people of Turkic descent, originally from Central Asia, who from the 2nd century onwards dwelled in the steppes north of the Caucasus and around the banks of river Volga (then Itil). A branch of them gave rise to the First Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars were governed by hereditary khans. There were several aristocratic families whose members, bearing military titles, formed a governing class. Bulgars were polytheistic, but chiefly worshiped the supreme deity Tangra.
			* 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'''
	I disagree..It is propaganda against the oldest EUROPEAN FOLK ! ! !
			* 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'''
	{{redacted}}
			* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]
			----
	Best regards, Veselin Videnov
			{{center|{{flatlist|
	Bolgar name, not Turkish, Tatar, Mongol or something else. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			* ]
	:This is not the page to take up this issue. You want to go to ] to discuss this, but you must have ] to add to this. ] (]) 13:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			}}}}
			<!--
			-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->
			== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
	== RfC re: Categorizing all works (albums, songs) by an artist by genre ==
			{{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've submitted an RfC re: the categorization of all works (albums, songs) by artists by genre.
			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 ].
	Please see ].
			'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
	Thanks! ---] <sub>(])</sub> 18:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
			* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
			* : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
			* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
			* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
			* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
			* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
			* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
			* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
			* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate.
			* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
			* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
			** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
			* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
			* ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa''
	== User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI‎ ==
	{{atop|Per community consensus, {{user links|DbivansMCMLXXXVI‎}} has been indefinitely topic banned from the history of Nazi Germany. ] &#124; ] 10:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC).}}
	The user {{user links|DbivansMCMLXXXVI‎}} is behaving in a belligerent manner and appears to be an impediment at ]. He has found a book by historian ] ('']'') published by Yale University Press to be unreliable and objects to it being used in the article. This is accompanied by personal attacks, accusations of vandalism, and edit warring. Here are some diffs:
			* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
	*Accusations via edit summaries: "Restored previous version due to persistent vandalism. (...) This source has already been determined to be unreliable and members have been warned."
			* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
	*More: "Stop making repeated unprofessional and overdramatic edits or we are going to report you for vandalism."
			* 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.}}
	*Issuing bogus vandalism warnings: "You have already been repeatedly warned that the source and information is not reliable. Please refrain from vandalizing article "Albert Speer"
			* 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.
			---
	This behaviour is not new; pls see:
			* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
	*April 2018, accusations of lying: "You are being completely untruthful. (...) Refrain from making any further changes or from further blatant lying or else you will be reported."
	*More personal attacks: "I would appreciate it if you would refrain from defending members after they have been repeatedly caught lying and misrepresenting the truth."		* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
	*March 2017: Using known fabulist ] and his semi-fictional book '']'' as a source: ]
			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)
	Attemps to resolve concerns:
	*
	*
			: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)
	Given the pattern of behaviour, I would like to request a topic ban from the history of Nazi Germany. --] (]) 01:09, 30 March 2019 (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 ]
	::Why have you not addressed my concerns? Do you really believe that a source that CLAIMS TO READ MINDS and novelizes historical events is a reliable source? For instance, open page 174 and he claims to be able to read Speer's mind, the mind of the officers he is talking to, AND THE CROWD PRESENT AT A RALLY. He also claims to know what soldiers at the front thought of a decision, when the soldiers would have been completely unaware of the decision even being made.
			JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
	::The very link you use as proof above shows that the only response was that members did not want to remove the reference, but show NO REASON why it should continue to be used as a source. Not one person was able to show a valid reason why this source should be used. He overdramatizes every statement and novelizes it. This does not meet wikipedia standards and you know it.
			::::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 have clearly stated and shown why he is an unreliable source and you pretend as if it does not exist. Your only response has been to simply ignore the concerns and warnings and force changes and override reverts. I have repeatedly attempted to discuss this topic and you have ignored all of the concerns. ] (]) 01:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
			:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
			:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{od}}
			I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.
			] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Support topic ban''' The above comment is made in reference to ''Speer: Hitler's Architect''. This is a recent and well reviewed book written by an academic who specialises in the World War II era which was published by Yale University Press. This has been pointed out to DbivansMCMLXXXVI at the Albert Speer FAC (]). Someone who is not able to understand that this book obviously meets ] and is disrupting articles and the FAC should obviously not be editing this topic area. ] (]) 01:41, 30 March 2019 (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)
	{{ctop|Lengthy debate about the underlying dispute + attempts to get discussion back on topic.}}
			::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: Once again you have failed to address my concerns. This author repeatedly claims to know the mental state and thought of multiple individuals. He also repeatedly quotes himself OR UNNAMED INDIVIDUALS as sources. He has not been reviewed well at all, as there are nearly no reviews even available. That is a blatantly false statement.
			:::@]: 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)
	:: Why is a source this unprofessional not against wikipedia standards? Instead of trying to get me banned, why not answer the question?
			:and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:: Also, I could not help but notice you verbatim repeated Mr. Koffman's original argument nearly word for word claiming the author is "well reviewed". Do you have any connection to Mr. Koffman or the author? Why are you repeating his statement verbatim? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			* 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)
	:::Dbivans, I am going to speak to you as a Misplaced Pages administrator, and this is only a comment on your behavior. I do not know who is right, and I actually don't care. That might sound crazy to you, but Misplaced Pages works by consensus, not by shouting over everyone else. Administrators called to a content dispute do not figure out who is right and then ban everyone else - the administrator determines who is disrupting the process of building consensus, and right now that is you. When you said "this source has been determined unreliable", what you actually meant is that ''you'' had determined the source to be unreliable. When you referred to opposing edits as vandalism, you were misusing the word. "Vandalism" has a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages: Actions taken with the intent of making Misplaced Pages ''worse''. A content dispute is not vandalism. When you brand opponents as vandals, and we can all see that you are misusing the word, you are simply encouraging people to ignore your arguments.
			*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
			*::::::* Anybody in the room who ]?
			*::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
			*::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]?
			*::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]?
			*::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
			*::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
			*::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::More generally, it is apparent that you believe that your personal interpretation of primary sources is more important than published historians' interpretations of primary sources. You are wrong. Misplaced Pages explicitly prefers secondary sources because the job of an encyclopedia is to inform readers of what other experts have concluded - not to draw our own conclusions. Also generally, it is apparent that you believe "being right" is an excuse to edit war. It is not. If we allowed that, everything would be in a state of edit war at all times because ''no one does anything in good faith if they think they're wrong''. Administrators do not assess expertise of the user, by the way. If I come across a page where three editors are calmly discussing the article, and the fourth one is screaming that the first three are liars and vandals while edit warring with everyone, I'm blocking the fourth one.
			* Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
	:::You are clearly passionate about this subject area, but the way you are approaching disputes has a very predictable outcome: you are going to be banned from the topic. The problem is not that your concerns have not been answered. The problem is that answers were given and you don't like them. When that happens, the solution is to follow the steps of ]. Bring up very focused questions on relevant noticeboards, like asking at the reliable sources noticeboard what other editors think of that book. Or open an RFC on the article's talk page to bring more editors to the dispute. Simply repeating your points and your reverts over and over again is not going to get anything done. If it is true that your point of view is obviously reasonable and correct and better than Koffman's, prove it by convincing other editors.
			:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:
			{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
	:::Most of all remember: There is no rush, there is no deadline. You don't need to get the article fixed right-the-hell-now. After all, what can you even do? You make an edit, someone reverts it. You revert it back. Are you going to just play a game of tit-for-tat until someone gets tired? If you get yourself banned, you'll stop having any input at all. But if you build a consensus, you can turn your version into the stable one. And if you can't build a consensus, well, that just means you weren't going to get what you wanted regardless, and it's best to move on. ] (]) 02:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
			{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}
			:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::: I appreciate your feedback, but if you look at the history of the edit war you will see that I have listed clear reasons and examples why the source is violating the rules, and quoted this as the reason for my claims against the other users. The user repeatedly added inflammatory content and accusations that do not meet wikipedia standards, including accusations of doctoring information, which I already responded to and disproved. The other users have shown exactly zero examples to back up their claims. Not just that, they have ignored ALL attempts at consensus and refused to discuss the actual subject. ] (]) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (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)
			: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.
			:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			{{ab}}
			*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
	:::: I have repeatedly tried to discuss this topic and get consensus but it has been ignored. The issues with the author have been completely ignored. Not a single person has addressed how unprofessional the author is. Not a single one of the members complaining has attempted to reach consensus, but has instead tried to force through edits. I have repeatedly asked for clarification and it has not been addressed. ] (]) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			*{{userlinks|Oct13}}
			A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::: Please show me one answer where someone has explained why its acceptable to use a source that claims to be able to read minds. Not a single person has actually addressed how unprofessional the author is, or that he routinely claims to know what people were thinking, and quotes his own opinions as proof. Where has anyone posted a single response answering this? They havent. ] (]) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::1) There is no requirement that other editors respond to your personal satisfaction. They engaged with you. They engaged with one another. Consensus is built. You are the odd man out. 2) See 1. 3) See 1. The reason you are being largely ignored on the talk page is that no one cares what your opinion of the book is. No one cares what your opinion of the author is. And no one has to. If it is so damned obvious, you should have no trouble finding other editors to agree with you at ]. ] (]) 03:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::: Not a single person has even responded AT ALL to my concern except by ignoring it. Show one example of someone addressing my concern that the author believes he can READ MINDS and that this is acceptable as a source. The only response is two members saying "This is well reviewed" and did not address the concerns in any way at all. Since they have not addressed the topic at all, how can this be considered consensus? It cannot. ] (]) 04:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::"It's well reviewed." "Something something historian." and "...49 citations". As I said, no one has to respond to every point you make. This is not a game of gish gallop where if your opponent doesn't respond to every point you raise you win. They don't have to respond to any points. You have been heard and your opinion has been dismissed. And you continue to misunderstand what this thread is about. ''I don't care if you were right''. This is a discussion of your behavior, not a discussion of whether your version of the article is better than the other one. I am trying to point out how your attitude is out of step with Misplaced Pages norms and expectations, and is going to get you banned. Being right is not going to protect you from getting banned if you continue to edit war against consensus and repeat yourself ''ad infinitum''. As I'm trying to tell you, learn to use dispute resolution. Learn to call attention to a dispute and see what other people think. Learn to use noticeboards to get input on specific issues. Rehashing the content dispute in a discussion of your behavior is not going to get you anywhere. If you respond to this with more attempts to justify bad behavior I'm going to just ignore the thread. ] (]) 04:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::::::: And as I have tried to state, my behavior is because they keep breaking the rules and trying to smear anyone who opposed Hitler. How is pointing out that he is breaking the rules and being unprofessional somehow an issue with my own behavior? All Im doing is pointing out his behavior and attempts to desecrate articles. The guy is literally defending Hitler by smearing everyone who opposed him. Take a step back and think what this is going to look like if the media gets a hold of this thread. "Misplaced Pages defends Nazi sympathizer desecrating articles about Hitler opposition". He claims to be against Nazis, but his obsessive smearing of Germans who opposed Hitler sure as hell says otherwise. Dont you think its natural for other members to call out this kind of behavior? ] (]) 04:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
	:::: '''Also, I have only reverted the article to its original state. The other user has made changes without consensus and it is extremely dishonest to try and paint me as the one without consensus when he has not even attempted to discuss it at all, and I am the only one who has made an attempt. There are exactly zero posts in the talk page where he has tried to get consensus from other members. He also has another member who follows him around making edits to support him in all cases where he argues. He is almost certainly using a sock puppet unless that person can read his mind as well. Seems to be a lot of mind reading around here lately.'''] (]) 04:14, 30 March 2019 (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.
	Id also like to make the admins aware of some obvious Nazi apologetics by the above member. He has repeatedly defended Hitler and tried to excuse or shift blame, including a list of Hitler's actions he defends and labels as "alibis" to attempt to excuse them.. Speer was one of the only Nazi leaders to condemn the atrocities of the war, and he wrote a book about the incompetence and corruption within the Nazi regime. The above user has been trying to smear Speer in an attempt to delegitimize his statements against the Nazi regime, as well as blame Speer for their actions. The user refuses to address this or that his sources are unreliable. I have to assume that his actions are an attempt to defend the Nazi movement and blame its opponents. He attacks almost every major accusation against Hitler or other high ranking Nazis and tries to smear and blame his subordinates. ] (]) 02:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br>
	:Dude... you really need to take a good look at that userpage. Like, a really good look. Because I think you're so fueled by emotion right now that its meaning has gone completely over your head, and you're just looking ridiculous right now. ] (]) 02:27, 30 March 2019 (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)
	:: Really? Because on almost all of the topics he tries to accuse the anti-Nazi Germans of somehow being liars. He has repeatedly removed anti-nazi posts, including one about tank commander Kurt Knispel. Knispel was a decorated German veteran who had been given Germany's highest honors, but was refused promotions because he assaulted a Nazi officer he found abusing a prisoner. Mr. Coffman intensely opposes any story involving Germans fighting back against Nazis, and repeatedly accuses anti-Nazi Germans of conspiracies. His claim to be anti-Nazi is absolutely ridiculous in light of his behavior towards Germans who opposed the regime. ] (]) 03:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	:::Koffman links to one content removal he performed on Knispel's page - a nickname with no source. The other two links were to Sphilbrick removing copyright violations. If you're referring to the revert he did of your contribution years ago, that was almost entirely either uncited or cited to a book from Flechsig Verlag, a non-academic publisher. You seem to pick and choose what you consider to be reliable sources based on your personal feelings of the work, rather than any kind of policy-based standards. ] (]) 04:21, 30 March 2019 (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)
	:::: That is completely untrue. He removed the entire article and I had to revert it back. He then removed it again without consensus. This is what its supposed to look like.. '''Coffman repeatedly removed all of the information without consensus and then did the same thing he did here. He accuses those trying to stop his changes of being the REAL ones without consensus.''' He clearly has absolutely no respect for consensus or the standards, if that was not clear from his refusal to discuss his source.] (]) 04:25, 30 March 2019 (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)
	{{cbot}}
			:@]: 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)
	*'''Note''': I have blocked {{u|DbivansMCMLXXXVI}} for 48 hours due to their ]-conduct and ] (and arguably ]) violations in this thread itself, without prejudice with regards to the discussion about the topic-ban. ] (]) 05:04, 30 March 2019 (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)
	*'''Support topic ban''' This editor has a big fat bee in their bonnet and is convinced that a recently published and well-reviewed biography of Speer published by Yale University Press is unreliable, based only on the editor's personal assessment. Their goal seems to be to frame Speer as a hero of the opposition to Hitler, which is absurd. False accusations of vandalism are evidence of bad faith, incompetence or both. By the way, I also support the block which was imposed while I was drafting this and having dessert. ] ] 05:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
	*'''Support topic ban''' The editor's portrayal (see "obvious Nazi apologetics" above) of ] is a complete misreading. The mistake was pointed out by Someguy1221 above yet DbivansMCMLXXXVI could not see it. It is not reasonable for such an editor to be active in a contested topic. ] (]) 06:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::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.
	*'''Support topic ban'''. This user has a history of tend, NPA and soapbox behaviour regarding Nazis. ] (]) 08:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::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.
	*'''Support topic ban''' as this is someone who doesn't seem able to keep a clear head on the subject of Nazi Germany, and support the block too for the personal attacks in this discussion. ] (]) 16:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::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.
	*:Looking over DbivansMCMLXXXVI's talk page and other edit history, they seem to have been rather confrontational and personal in discussions on other topics too, so I'm not sure a Nazi topic ban will suffice. But it's a good start, and hopefully there will be a lesson learned. ] (]) 17:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			:::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)
	*:For the record, the personal attacks, including "''making pro Nazi edits''", have continued in their unblock request, and I have revoked talk page access for the block duration. This is further evidence that DbivansMCMLXXXVI is badly misinterpreting the words and actions of others (while refusing to listen to consensus), and is not able to recognize when to stop attacking. I foresee an indefinite block if this behaviour resumes when the block expires. ] (]) 03:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
			FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	*'''Support TBAN''' Clearly confrontational, problem with RSes and consensus, and IDHT here.] (]) 21:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== ] backlog doin' great ==
	== Regarding massive editing on page ] ==
			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.
	hi
	more than 100 links of sources were deleted of the above article with out any discussion. editor have a view that sources are not of news papers like new york times. contributor has a view point that sources were of Indian popular newspapers as the personality is from India. government sources links were also included under the deleted one. contributor suggested to undo cahnges and a discussion can be done on source before deletion but editor is not ready to repose the same and adamant to his edit. he also quoted a six year old notification which was rectified with out opposition at the time only inside the article. kindly suggest what to do now.] (]) 13:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	: I deleted a mass of very weak links provided to support claims for this article. A search on Google reveals few if any reliable sources; many of those deleted were on YouTube. Far from refusing to discuss, I have repeatedly asked Rusianejohn to join the discussion and provide sources, which have not been forthcoming. Today at last Rusianejohn made some preliminary remarks but apart from asking for the weak sources to be reinstated, has provided no evidence of notability. I'm all ears for better sources. ] (]) 15:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	:: Today only i have checked such mass deletion and i am making a list of new links and important from deleted links supporting the heads. article was not at all based on the you tube links and the remaining 27 links out of 144 is sufficient to support lines but still i will write more links and send to you. you tube links were mostly of episode of regular tv shows on national and international tv channels which supports title- Tv celebrity. most of the big channels has there own you tube channel and they put past episodes on those channel. few put them on there websites. i will mention those links as well. Remaining links deleted by you need to be verify before deletion. i will put them here with new links as well. my only humble request and objection is if we don't understand a language and don't know about one particular source or have confusion, than at least we can talk. talk page is for that only. we can always discuss before execution for old and established articles. this we do at wiki.] (]) 16:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	::: I'm very glad you have started on that. I have been through the sources in the article that I can access: nearly all are dead links or otherwise unusable. I have added quotations to two that are good and usable, but unfortunately those are much too brief to demonstrate notability. If you can find some Hindi sources and translate those we should easily find out whether Sharma is notable, but that isn't a matter for this noticeboard. ] (]) 16:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	I have send around 20 links with narration for you at talk page (including old and new), you can have a look, during revision of deleted links i have seen links of good news papers which are still active but deleted with the youtube one. those links supported with photo and news of Sharma honored with awards in other country. links of video of press conference on news channels website where she is sitting with minister of other countries, where she was sent by Indian government as culture Ambassador, that press conference is in English and with English narration also. that is the reason why i was dis-satisfied because you have deleted 118 links and it is not possible for any body to check all links so quickly, out of these 118 links you tube links were around 10 only . i can understand that you tube links are not reliable but others are. i can understand that few old links are dead now because of old news and articles that is the reason new news and articles were introduced and were added to the article. earlier also many users contribute to the article and deleted the links but this was my first experience in last 7 years. . ] (]) 06:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	::: We are discussing these links on User talk:Rusianejohn, which is sufficient. So far we have agreed that none of the links so far identified are usable for notability, we are examining further links. ] (]) 18:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	::The OP has also started this thread ]. Some one may want to consolidate them. ]&#124;] 06:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::: after the last 2 uploads of links and discussion i have uploaded more links of government sites in English as well Hindi news links with google translations as ] unable to translate. as far as previous links i had a view point that those links support the content and from reputed sites and can be easily translated but still i have uploaded more and more links, this time in English as well Hindi with translation supporting the content completely.] (]) 09:51, 1 April 2019 (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)
	== Possible NLT at BLPN ==
			== Call for mentors ==
	Would an admin mind taking a look at ]? {{u|CTF99}} is claiming to be an attorney for ] and is expressing some concerns about the article. That's probably OK except for the last paragraph of their post where the seem to move into NLT territory. There may also be some undisclosed PAID editing as well since the account has been editing the article over the years, but hasn't declared any connection. -- ] (]) 14:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	:Given the exceptional length of the post, the potential NLT bit is: {{tq|I am happy to work with you to resolve this but be advised that if the matter is not resolved expeditiously, and any libelous, contentious, or conflict of interest material is not removed, Ms. Wang will proceed to exercise all available remedies and hold accountable all responsible individuals for all damages permitted by law, including attorneys' fees}}. I'll leave it to others to work this out. ] (]) 14:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	:Appears to have . ]] 16:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	::The content which might be seen as violation of NLT has been stricken as pointed out by ]; the undisclosed COI and paid editing concerns, however, have still not been clarified. CTF99 not only has identified themselves as being an attorney representing Wang, but specifically someone named James Fretcher. This could be the same Jim Fletcher attributed in about Wang, and also the same "Jim Fretcher" mentioned as being a "China General Aviation LLC" manager in about a lawsuit Wang has filed. So, CCLT should declare their connection to Wang per ] and ] and clarify that he is who he's claiming to be and not a ]. -- ] (]) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::Or maybe the James Frechter who is her lawyer in article or the Jim Frechter who is her husband in . See also the ] that started it all.] (]) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::: There is also the issue of multiple accounts/IP addresses being used by what appears to be the same editor, in particular {{u|CTF99}} and {{u|Kigenkigen}}. ] (]) 03:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	:::::Blocks handed out pursuant to ]. ]&nbsp;]] 09:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	===Outing?===
	I'm going to add {{u|EdiK2016}} to this discussion. This is another ] which appears to be involved somehow in the off-Misplaced Pages dispute with Wang mentioned in the article; however, the reason I'm adding them to this discussion is that posts made at ] (which have since been removed, but are still in the page's history) by the account seem really close to if actually not succeeding at ] of Kigenkigen. -- ] (]) 21:03, 31 March 2019 (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)
	:Other suspected socks of EdiK2016, {{u|Holmes767}}, {{u|Douwang}}, {{u|Douwang1124}}. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 21:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
			:I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ]&nbsp;] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			: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 ]==
	::Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are more likely to be socks of either Kigenkigen or CTF99. I believe they want the removal of information critical of the subject putting them against EdiK2016 who wants it included. ] (]) 22:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
			]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
			== Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==
	:::EdiK2016 is not (at least from a checkuser standpoint}} related to any of the Kigenkigen socks. ]&nbsp;]] 09:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
			I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
	== Answers in Genesis ==
	{{atop
	| status = No action
	| result = This is a content dispute and nothing more. Please seek assistance via one of the methods listed at ]. ] (]) 00:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC) {{nac}}
	Add: requests for closure go at ]. There's a section there just for that. ] (]) 00:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	}}
			(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	Can an uninvolved administrator conclude on ]?
			{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	Here is my take on it: there are currently 2 'support' !votes (me and ]) and 3 'oppose' !votes. However, all three 'oppose' voters have either not stated any issue with my proposal, instead arguing that it is not an ''improvement'' over the current version (like ] and ]) or have explicitly stated that they are 'OK' with the proposed version (like ]). As per ], which says that "consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change", that should imply that there is a consensus to implement the proposal. The only ''objection'' made against the proposal is by ], but these issues appear to me to be easily fixable (), and the user hasn't explicitly stated that they oppose the general proposal. Either way, even if we count their comment as an 'oppose' !vote, we still have a 2 against 1 in favour of the proposal. Feel free to add your take on the situation under this post.] 21:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
			== Heritage Foundation ==
	:'''I object to the change.''' At the same time I am OK with the change if that is the way the consensus goes. I don't always get what I want and the proposed version isn't awful; it just isn't quite as good as what is there now.
			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)
	:Re "the only ''objection'' made against the proposal is by Rhododendrites", I object to Oldstone James' attempt to decide which objections are real and which don't meet his standard for "real" objections. Everyone who !voted "oppose" objects to the change, whether or not Oldstone James is willing to accept the fact of those objections.
			== Deleted contributions request ==
	:I would also note that I asked for a clarification from the protecting admin on the article talk page. He is probably off enjoying himself on the Misplaced Pages Administrator's Yacht weekly cruise to the Misplaced Pages Administrator's Private Island and hasn't edited since I asked. I would welcome any administrator putting down his ] for a moment and answering my question. --] (]) 23:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
			{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	{{abot}}
			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)
	===Behavioral issues===
			::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	Let's reopen this for another purpose, please. I respect {{u|Oldstone James}}' tenacity and that he keeps his cool in a situation that is no doubt extremely frustrating for him. However, can we get an uninvolved admin to review the behavioral issues going on at ]?
			:::{{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)
	*It seems like no change made by James isn't followed by a brief edit war, going back a couple years, though typically stopping short of 3RR.
			::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I have mixed feelings about the copious amount of text on the talk page. In part I can empathize with repeatedly trying to be understood or come to an understanding, but now that it's sprawling to multiple noticeboards, too (AN3, ANI, DRN), it's hard not to see this as disruptive given the way the discussion has gone so far.
			:::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*I was furthermore concerned about canvassing. There was that resulted in shortly thereafter. I didn't bother mentioning it at the time, because, to be fair, 1990'sguy had participated on the page and would likely have supported this anyway, but it's not a good look. It was furthermore followed a little while later by to three people who just happen to be editors that have taken issue in the past with the way AiG is characterized along the lines of e.g. pseudoscience. Unlike 1990'sguy, these are not people who were already involved in the current discussions. Again, to be fair, we don't know the content of those messages, and the recipients didn't participate in the discussion, but again, it's not a good look.
			The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	I'm not proposing anything in particular -- just suggesting an uninvolved admin take a look, for the sake of all the time that's being expended over the last few days (and potentially much more, now that it's at DRN, too). &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 03:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	:What you mean by edit war is actually an attempt to find ], as I change my edit every time. I did not know about ], hence the large amount of text. I have since reduced the amount of text I post. As for multiple noticeboards, I have clearly only tried DRN after being told so in ANI. As for canvassing, I only tried to notify users who have previously proposed changes that are similar to mine. However, since you mentioned behavioural issues, it would be unfair to not also look into ], who has launched several ] attacks at me, including telling me to "fuck off" and admitting that is a personal attack (), implying that I can't count (), implying that I am blind, and others; as well as ] who has launched 1/2 personal attacks (implying that I am an unreasonable person and ungrounded accusion of me not abiding by consensus) in .] 03:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	::Oldstone James has been blocked for a week by ]. ] ] 19:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	== Community sanctions review ==
	I have just ECP-protected ] under ], however I'd like a review of this action. This topic is a militant group operating in the Punjab region of northern India, which has carried out attacks on Indian assets and is supposedly involved in arms smuggling between Pakistan and India, but I think that this might fall outside of the "conflict between India and Pakistan" scope of the community sanction. If the community feels that this action is inappropriate then I will happily undo it, but if so then I ask for more admins to watch the page as it's already under 1RR as an ] discretionary sanction, and there is still a slow edit war in progress. Cheers. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 23:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
	*KCF, and anything related to Kashmir or Punjab separatism, is well-within the scope of the real-world and on-wiki Indo-Pak conflict. No issues with the ECP. ] (]) 00:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	*Looks entirely within scope to me. ] (]) 05:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	== Revdelete diff ==
	{{atopg
	| status =
	| result = RD'ed. In the future, it would be better to email an individual admin than to post to AN. ]] 21:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	}}
	Can somebody revdelete because it contains some profanity? Thanks! ''']Need]''' <sup>:3</sup> 19:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
	:Jo-Jo Eumerus handled it. In the future it's probably best to contact an individual admin for such things, that draws less attention to it. ] (])
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] ==
	== Possible misunderstood UPOL block ==
	Can someone take a look at this block ]. My rational is posted on the talk page. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	== It's April Fools' Day ==
			]'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)
	It's that time of year again. Remember, everyone, to abide by and enforce the rules at ]. Have fun (or don't), everyone. ]] 03:34, 1 April 2019 (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)
	: As a suggestion since we've already had one administrator "prank" an Arbitration Committee page, lets try to avoid ARB space today. We (the clerks) don't need any extra clean up outside of the usual added. (These opinions are my own etc...) --] <sup>] </sup> 06:06, 1 April 2019 (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)
	::That would be me, for full disclosure, and in years past my similar comments on various arbitration pages never generated pushback. But, if you are getting resistance in one area, just find another place where you won't; it's not worth a fight. ] (]) 06:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	::Good to see the Arb clerks wanting to play fun police this year. Great work! Presumably, any sysop who's going to pull an April Fools' joke in the Arbspace is going to be responsible enough to remove it after April Fools' day. Though I'm sure Blade is ''very'' remorseful for this great burden he's dropped on you and the entire Arbitration team. You may file your grievance with the ], along with the rest of the toothless complaining that happens ''every fucking year'' in response to the harmless tradition of good-natured humor and lighthearted fun for ''one day a year''. ] 🐝 ] · ] 06:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	:::<small>As tempted as I am to say, "]" with a straight face, I can't quite manage it. ] (]) 08:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)</small>
	:::I deleted my original post because I wanted to give myself more time to come up with a coherent thought, but in general, I just want to say that the attitude of "it's funny, get over it" is a nakedly hostile and uncomfortable stance to take in 2019, particularly in light of the fact that in recent years I've found that April Fool's Day on Misplaced Pages is used as leverage to ]. I realize that Misplaced Pages isn't censored, but with the current changes in the global social climate and especially in light of the ], we need to be extra-careful to not brazenly alienate readers for the sake of generating "lulz".--] (]) 12:18, 1 April 2019 (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)
	=== Two suggestions for the future ===
	Yes, not even halfway through the day.
	#No messing with user talk pages' tilt and such, for accessibility reasons. See for example ({{u|Cyberpower678}}) or ({{u|TenPoundHammer}}).
	#No using CSD tags as jokes (e.g. TPH's yearly userpage tagging, or . They clutter up ] and can't be clearly determined as jokes from there, unlike other deletion discussion logs. ]] 06:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#:<small>re-pinging {{u|Cyberpower678}} ]] 06:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)</small>
	#::Fun fact for anyone that is bored - ] fully protected their talk page to avoid any pranks, but their user page itself is only semi-protected... --] (]) 07:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#:::Well, "to avoid any pranks ''by non-admins''". Mere plebes can't be trusted to produce humor adequate for such an advanced onomatopoeiaic life-form. ] (]) 08:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#::::If we could get a global-renamer on board with the April Fools' spirit, we could fix that... ] (]) 08:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#:::::{{u|GoldenRing}}, Fun fact, I am a global renamer. ''<small>→ Call me</small>'' ]] 15:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#::: If someone truly hates April Fools Day that much, they probably wouldn't find that very funny. ] (]) 14:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#:{{u|Ansh666}}, I can respect not joke tagging articles, joke nominating articles, and replacing the Main Page with pure nonsense, because readers. But on April Fools day I will do what I please with my userspace. If anyone doesn't like it, they can wait until April Fools is over and then come back to my pages. My userspace is fully automated. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 15:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#::Nobody cares what you do with your user page and subpages, but your user ''talk'' is a different story. As you are undoubtedly aware, I did have an issue that I needed to discuss with you, but your talk page made it difficult to do that - especially as an admin, you must maintain your talk page to meet ] and the obligations of ]. Essentially, have all the fun you want, ''as long as you don't make it difficult for others who are just trying to carry on as normal''. This is something that, on ''any'' day, is unacceptable, and that we have warned others for in the past. ]] 17:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#:::{{u|Ansh666}}, By that logic Boing should not be allowed to fully protect their talk until April fools day is over, with the instruction "come back tomorrow". I'm not in violation of ADMINACCT. I'm still reachable, via email and talk, and though my talk page is rotated, you can still leave me a message with the new section link. Urgent matters should be emailed to me anyways as I'm not always active on my talk page. From my experience, not much has ever been so important that the response couldn't wait for a day. This is my take on the matter. —] (]) 18:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#:::Don't touch your talk page because someone might ''need'' to post there? You can still post there; none of the edit or new section buttons at the top are tilted. And if that doesn't work for you, you could come back tomorrow. The encyclopedia will go on, even if some editor's talk page is unusable for a day. Excuse me while I go turn my talk page upside down. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 18:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#:::Completely childish. Grow the **** up and get on with what we're all '']''. People wanna have fun? Great, go to the park and leave the internet connection at home. ]]] 18:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
	#::::Yeah, I'm sure the volunteers will just be lining up to join us with that kind of attitude. ''Misplaced Pages: You wanna have fun? Go somewhere else.'' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">]&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">]</span></span> 18:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 21:12, 8 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators

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

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	23	0	23
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	8	0	8
RfD	0	0	39	0	39
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 30 sockpuppet investigations
• 22 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 59 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 14 requested closures
• 38 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 12 Copyright problems

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

VENUE CORRECTED Now at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra, I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - Herodyswaroop (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:COIN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Unclear policy

Asked and answered. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

If an RfC about policy -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists.

For disclosure this is about this RFC on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and this follow-up, about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how absolutely wild it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, which is something existing policy actually tells you, explicitly, to do!, and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are.

I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc.

This isn't just my opinion, it's Misplaced Pages policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of WP:5P (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously so important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (which is also policy). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time.

There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. Liz 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? GiantSnowman 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. —Compassionate727  19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you should move this complaint to WP:ANI. You will get better response there. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think Liz's comments are spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

"More" response is not always a better response. And I think we addressed Gnomingstuff's question, as much as I understood what they were asking about. It was pretty vague. Liz 03:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

43.249.196.179 (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks by User:Remsense

The OP needs to let go and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

I was instructed to report this here.

The editor in question: Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Claiming a user "can't read": . Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
• Calling a user a "scoundrel": . Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
• Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: . Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY.
• Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation . Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH.

2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

(For the record, I will not be participating in any WP:DR process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You were not instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

IP, just drop the stick. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you blocked per WP:BOOMERANG, as you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. Codename AD 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. What does that diff have to do with anything? My complaint at WP:AN/3 was about Remsense's 3RR violation. My complaint here is about their personal attacks. I was directed to report that here.

If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. For pursuing enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies? What kind of Kafkaesque nonsense is that?

@Phil Bridger: You were not instructed to report this here. Yes I was. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". And the antecedent of that "if" is satisfied, as the above diffs show.

@Codename AD: DROPTHESTICK The last retort of someone who knows they're in the wrong. By the way, "DROPTHESTICK" isn't policy.

you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs Yes, I have. How many more examples of Remsense's misconduct do you need? Give a number. 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

With this blatant administrator abuse and corruption, it's no wonder Misplaced Pages is perceived as a joke by the public nowadays. Circling the wagons to shield a user from rule enforcement and cover for each other's admin abuse.

Why do you have such a strong interest in protecting Remsense from Misplaced Pages's rules? Is Remsense part of your "clique"? 2001:569:7FEA:2900:3948:C64E:1D08:FB61 (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked. For the disruption and personal attacks above and at WP:ANEW, I have blocked 2001:569:7FEA:2900:0:0:0:0/64 for a month. Pinging Johnuniq: will blocking this /64 do it, John? Bishonen | tålk 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: My provider gives me /56 and leases of /48 are not unheard of at other providers. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't even given anyone a reason to like me that much, so this kind of result only makes sense if I'm demonstrably the duller thorn in the community's side. Remsense ‥ 论 04:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  If anything new turns up, let me or Bishonen know. I am closing this now. Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to all editors on this project! Liz 00:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Misplaced Pages! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year to the whole English Misplaced Pages community! Ahri Boy (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The most I can muster, to all editors, is after 2024, I hope all of your 2025s are better than you expect them to be! Liz 04:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

RM completion request

Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Please carry out the moves at Talk:Minsk District. I was attempting to close it, but got rate-limited because of the sheer number of pages in question. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Doing... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

And done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

File:L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat, Complete.webm

Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Hi, This is now in the public domain in France, but I can't move this file to Commons because the first version is hidden. Please help. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yann, I've deleted the hidden revision, you should be able to move it now. — Masem (t) 14:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

an obstacle to translation

This does not require administrator intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

---

I was going to translate the article 2022 Wikimedia Foundation actions on the Arabic and Persian Wikipedias into Persian. While translating, I noticed that the title of the article and some of its content about the Persian Misplaced Pages were not cited. I contacted the author (user:Ahri Boy)of the article but have not received a satisfactory answer yet. Please look into the matter. Arbabi second (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request removal of PMR/Rollback

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

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

---

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

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

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

Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal of topic ban from 2018

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:SpiralWidget vandalizing pages

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

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

---

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

Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The exact text from the source is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated tool abuse by User:FlightTime

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emoji redirect

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

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

---

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

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

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

Topic ban appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andra Febrian report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr.Choppers warning request

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

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

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

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

Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

---

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

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

Cannot draftify page

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

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

---

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

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

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

Remove PCR flag

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

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

---

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

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

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

"The Testifier" report

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

Problem with creating user talk page

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

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

Administrator changes

Sennecaster

• Daniel
• Hog Farm

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

CheckUser changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Ferret

Oversight changes

• Daniel
• Elli
• Liz
• ScottishFinnishRadish
• Theleekycauldron

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Miscellaneous

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

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

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

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

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

---

repost from archive:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, I am glad you asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

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

  — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An inappropriate template being added to many pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFU backlog doin' great

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

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

Call for mentors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heritage Foundation

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

Deleted contributions request

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards