| Revision as of 13:36, 30 November 2006 editHusnock (talk | contribs)12,977 edits →Unfair and biased deletion notice: evil plans← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:20, 22 January 2025 edit undoTiggerjay (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,567 edits →WP:BLPN closures: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |counter = 368 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| }}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| |age=48 | |||
| |index=no | |||
| |numberstart=255 | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| }} | |||
| --><!-- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| <!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}<!-- This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-3 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive63--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE--> | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| --><noinclude> | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| ==Open tasks== | |||
| <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| {{Admin tasks}} | |||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
| == Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | |||
| {{archive top|status=no consensus|result=This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. ] ] 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| {{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me. | |||
| Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ]. | |||
| 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 ].}} | |||
| == Block of AOL ranges per ] == | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have blocked the three open proxy ranges of AOL, 64.12.96.0/19, 152.163.0.0/16, and 205.188.0.0/16 with anon-only, account creation enabled, for being effectively open proxies. These address can be exploited by anyone by installing and using the now-free AOL software . More information on how AOL distributes IP address through the proxy server is located at ]. Anonymous editors on these ranges are encouraged to create an account. ] 01:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I endorse this. I think it's kind of a shame but was inevitable. ] 01:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I endorse as well. It's much less effort to create an account than it is to keep up with the ridiculous amount of malicious editing from AOL proxy IP addresses. —]</small>] ] <small>02:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * comment: do you have to use class b's, or would class c's work? further comment: as somebody who worked in aol's netops, i can tell you any traffic you are getting on port 80 from them is ''through'' a proxy (or more than one). so trying to block proxies from their space is useless. <b>... </b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 03:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Since you're someone who's worked in aol's netops, can you suggest other useful rangeblocks? <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]|]) </font></i></b> 03:44, 18 November 2006 (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) | |||
| ::No, unfortunately I can't give that kind of information out. I think it would be more productive to find another way to avoid the disruption than to wholesale block users. Do we have any figures for how many users are originating at AOL? What I'm getting at is, we need to determine how many users are affected by such global indiscriminate blocking. <b>... </b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I fully endorse this, being a former AOL user myself. There was some other wiki with a similar policy... where you had to use secure login. --''']''' (] - ]) 03:22, 18 November 2006 (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) | |||
| *: The ]. —]</small>] ] <small>03:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| *OK, seems reasonable.''']''' 05:52, 18 November 2006 (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> | |||
| *(trolling and ]) --] 11:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''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) | |||
| *:Stop trolling. This is your first edit. AOL ranges have been blocked because the software used to access them is now readily accessible on their website, effectively making them open proxies. And that's all there is to it. ] 11:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Someone's going to have to overhaul ] because of this, and it won't be me. ] 12:46, 18 November 2006 (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) | |||
| **I notice that it's only some off the proxies, so if we overhaul AOL, it should indicate this. BTW, this seems like a pretty major decision, I'm surprised we're not getting more opposition. Surely, sometime in about 1 month, a bureaucrat will come across this, take offense, and undo it. Not that I don't support the decision, though... ]<sup>]]</sup> 19:42, 18 November 2006 (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) | |||
| *I endorse this decision-- what a shame. We're really going to lose a lot of good edits. ] 19:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I <s>weakly oppose</s> very weakly oppose this. Softblocking and enabling account creation make this not too bad, but there are people who will be using their regular internet connection (no additional proxies), and will find themselves blocked unless they create an account, which they might not bother doing. See ]. ] (]|]) 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC), 06:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Armedblowfish, this block only affects users of the openly available AOL proxies, not any other IP address range. That prolifically static IP user will not be affected.—] (]) 20:10, 18 November 2006 (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) | |||
| *::That's their problem. Tell that to AOL. It's time to separate the bad from the good here, and time to make AOL users accountable for their edits. ''All'' of AOL might as well be blocked, but be thankful we didn't decide to do that. I'm tired of giving amnesty to something that's not even our fault. Maybe OTRS ought to forward complaints to AOL to see what AOL users and others alike have to put up with every day? // ] (]) 20:07, 18 November 2006 (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) | |||
| *::: Perhaps I misunderstand, ], but aren't these exit node proxies used by both regular AOL users and users who consciously connect to them? As for blocking all of AOL, Pilotguy, if I remember correctly, AOL autoblocks are part of ] (the founder of ]) reason for leaving Misplaced Pages... more than once. And of course there's ]. ] (]|]) 20:33, 18 November 2006 (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) | |||
| *::::: Unfortunately, administrators still have no way of knowing whether the user they are blocking is editing through AOL or not. The only way to do that would be to give admins checkuser access, which would of course be a privacy violation for such a use. ] (]|]) 20:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠]♠ ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{tl|unblock-auto}} was created for that reason.—] (]) 21:06, 18 November 2006 (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) | |||
| *::::::: See ]. What I'm trying to say is that the (well-intentioned) AOL users' opinions of us are probably low enough already without alienating new (well-intentioned) AOL users trying to edit as anons. ] (]|]) 21:22, 18 November 2006 (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) | |||
| *::::::::logged in users probably wont even notice the block.] 03:23, 19 November 2006 (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) | |||
| Okay, I'll be the one to post a somewhat naive question here - and I'm neither supporting nor opposing the decision to block these ranges, just asking a question. How much of a problem have bad edits from these ranges been in reality? I don't mean bad edits from AOL anons in general, I know that's a problem - but are problematic edits from the now-blocked ranges more common than those from any other AOL range? I thought the reason open proxies are blocked is because there's no way to trace edits for purposes such as blocking vandals ... but I thought we were resigned to that situation in the case of AOL anyhow. Is there reason to fear the situation here would be worse than usual? I assume this is a bit of a naive question, as I said, and that the answer is yes or this wouldn't have been done, and I claim no technical expertise, but I'm interested in a little more of the thinking here, if only because I was once an AOL anon and if I hadn't been able to edit for a little while from there I probably wouldn't be here now. Thanks to whoever can clarify a bit. ] 03:34, 19 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :First, AOL only rather recently began to provide this completely free service. Before, someone would get a free CD in the mail, use slow dial-up and would then consume their free hours. Now it can be simply downloaded, used on high-speed, fast-loading connections, and used limitlessly. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :I don't know why only these addresses were blocked, there are other AOL proxy addresses that would seem to warrant blocking under the same reason. This is almost all of them, though. Note that AOL client IPs are much less of a problem. Whereas with the proxy IPs every single page request may go to a different proxy, if the person is not using the AOL web browser he is confined to one client IP until he disconnects and re-dials. With the proxy IPs someone can download the AOL software for free, or hook into it with some vandalbot software and their edits will jump around across the range. This happened even when the service was not so free. This does happen, and just like other open proxies are used to circumvent blocks, the same will be done with the free AOL download. | |||
| *'''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) | |||
| :Anyone using AOL is still able to edit Misplaced Pages by using Internet Explorer or Firefox, not the AOL browser, as those will use the relatively unchanging AOL client IPs, or they can use the SSL connection or change their proxy settings. —]→] • 07:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::So what you're saying is that ]? <b>... </b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 22:06, 19 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :::Of course. When "browser" = "abusive open proxy software", then it's very clear why not all browsers are equal or should be treated equally. — ] ] 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I would just like to say that open proxy software is not inherently "abusive". It is a tool that can be used for various purposes - some abusive, others not. Open proxy software can protect privacy. Even though Misplaced Pages will not disclose your IP address without good reason, assuming you register for an account, the communications between you and Misplaced Pages can still be eavesdropped upon. However, since open proxies can also be used for negative purposes, it is reasonable to expect users intentionally using them for privacy reasons to register an account and deal with the autoblocks. As for users unintentionally using them, I don't think I'm part of the majority opinion.... ] (]|]) 04:30, 20 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :::::Point taken, and well said. I should say instead that, in general, not all HTTP software is the same or should be treated equally. Some of them are begging to be abused (AOL's browser, open proxies), and some don't lend themselves especially to abuse (Firefox et. al.). They're all tools that have good uses and which can be abused. When we can tell what tools are being abused and what aren't, it's reasonable to act on that. Equality of access is an issue, but one that has to be weighed against the harm it can do. We don't give everyone admin tools after all. — ] ] 06:38, 20 November 2006 (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) | |||
| Also, since the AOL proxies are now open proxies, shouldn't we be disable account creation from these ranges? It would seem that most people who would deliberately use open proxies to hide their IP addresses would also be willing to create accounts if necessary. ] 14:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Also along the same lines, but never announced on ] (only on IRC), I've been preemptively blocking ] proxies with a link to ]. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 15:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Moscow Connection}} Your ''comments'' are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning, <s>but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.</s><small>It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. </small> ] ] 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I personally '''oppose''' ("strongly" seems appropriate, if redundant) this move. It's abject laziness to not find a more appropriate way to prevent the vandalism. <b>... </b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *: And what do you consider more appropriate? We can't somehow modify human behaviour so any change will have to be technical, this seems to give us two options (1) prevent access from ips which are known to be sources of large quanities of vandalism or (2) Pre-validate all edits. Both have downsides. --] 22:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? 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}}." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. ] (]) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*I must agree; it's easy to say "your solution stinks", but it's hard to say "here's a better one." As a vandal-fighter, I can tell you that many countless hours are wasted zapping vandals using public IPs that could be much better spent doing things like contributing to an encyclopedia. Do you have a better solution (an honest question)? -]<sup>]]</sup> 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and ] is yours. ] (]) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I did in fact say "your solution stinks." As an editor and contributor (my feelings on vandal fighting are well known) it isn't my job to come up with a better idea. I think the proposed (or indeed implemented) solution is a bad one, and it would be less harmful to remove the blocks and counter vandalism on a case-by-case basis, rather than block users wholesale. Secondly, as a professional programmer, network admin, and so on, I can tell you that such better solutions do exist. Consider, if you will, the myriad vandal fighting scripts sulking around this project. If those scripts are capable of tagging vandalism for a fingers-and-eyes review, or indeed reversing it (as I see occasionally on my watchlist), then we need only to apply such a solution to these ranges. If we block four class B's, that's over a quarter of a million IP addresses. Solutions therefore exist, and this solution, as I said, is one of abject laziness and/or hostility towards users of the much maligned AOL service. | |||
| *'''Support''' with a little ] and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ]@] 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Continuing, has anyone produced metrics determining how much vandalism is being ''prevented'', and how many positive edits are being prevented? Ironically, during my time at AOL, one of my responsibilities was divining metrics from vast heaps of data. In this case, such vast heaps of data exist (or checkuser would not work), and nobody is putting the data to use by mining it for metrics. Imagine, if you will, AOL making a decision that it would only support users on DSL or faster connections. At the outset, this seems like a good decision. However, with something crucial on the line, such as a revenue stream (or constructive edits from a quarter million IP addresses), it would be foolhardy to unilaterally act without having a firm understanding of what the downstream effects are. | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. ] (]) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't have any personal vendetta against the proponents of this decision, but again, I must call it what it is: abject laziness. If people spent as much time coming up with a solution as they do playing cops-and-robbers, we would ''have'' a solution already. Consider the ]. When one discovers a problem that will require repeated, consistent results, one does not simply sigh and resolve to complete the task ad infinitum. Rather, the intelligent person will analyze the problem, find its common points, and build a mechanism for doing the work for them. This way, you wind up watching many automatons doing your work for you, and your bandwidth available for accomplishing said tasks is remarkably improved. For those of you taking notes, it is possible to distill this down to one common adage: ''work smarter, not harder.'' Instrumenting such large blocks is quite the opposite: it is not working (as in trevail rather than sufficient) at all. <b>... </b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abottom}} | |||
| * I support this move... we've had nothing but repeated problems due to the bizzare setup of AOL proxies. Anything to stop the massive vandalism spree by AOLers is fine by me. ]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">☢</span> 00:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Strongest oppose possible''' - this is ridiculous. --] 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Could you explain why? This isn't a vote but rather a discussion, so you've essentially said nothing. — ] ] 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This will not prevent abuse by AOL users at all. Vandals will simply create accounts, which will make things even more difficult for us. --] 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Which is why we should not only block anonymous editing, but also block account creation on the AOL proxies, as we would for any other open proxies. Existing users could continue to edit Misplaced Pages through the proxies; new users could bypass the proxies, and edit from their own IP addresses, by using an external web browser instead of the browser in the AOL software. We certainly wouldn't be preventing anyone using AOL from editing. Is there some compelling reason not to fully enforce ] against the AOL proxies? ] 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, a new (hypothetical) situation. Somebody from AOL wants to start editing Misplaced Pages. They can't edit under the blocked IP from AOL. So they go to create an account. They can't since account creation is blocked. So they go to IE or something like that. Problem is, AOL parental controls blocks all external browsers. any ideas? --''']''' (] - ]) 04:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::As the AOL page says, they can use the Wikimedia SSL service, or they may be able to change their proxy connections. They could also create an account at school or at a library. —]→] • 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I strongly, strongly endorse this. Frankly, we should've done it a long time ago. I also concur with John254 on this point and am sorely tempted to reblock with account creation disabled. We don't owe AOL a damn thing. ] ] 03:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Did they ever actually enable the XFF headers after they said they would? —]→] • 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***No, they didn't. And if they did, it's not effective for the ranges I blocked. I originally was going to block account-creation, but decided against it after some discussion on IRC. Feel free to reblock with account creation disabled if this would be better. I personally would support blocking account creation. Potential editors can use the SSL service to create an account (provided there isn't a problem server-side with an increase of traffic there) or use a public library or a friend's computer. These three ranges are the ones I have found are the most used through personal experience. ] 05:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **** If I remember correctly, they did, only that our XFF whitelist doesn't have ] support. You should probably ask ] on IRC about this, though. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***** About account creation enabling/blocking - you could compromise and block account creation on some percent of them. This will allow a persistent person trying to register to do so if they are patient enough to wait for their exit proxy to change to one with account creation enabled, but make it harder on anyone who wants to register a large number of accounts. (Note that I am actually opposed to disabling account creation because of the people using these proxies as part of their regular internet connection.) Just a thought, ] (]|]) 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps we should get Jimbo's say on whether AOL proxies should be blocked. --] 06:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with blocking anon editing, but disabling account creation as well seems to go too far. Most of AOL seem not to be malicious vandals, but the immature and silly kind. (]) 15:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've directed Jimbo to this discussion. I think that AOL forced our hand on this one so to speak. This isn't just an example of a set of open proxies now but a set of user-friendly open proxies. To allow them would lead to so many different problems even aside from vandalism. I'm normally a strong proponent of letting anons edit but this is way over the line. ] 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't like this idea. ''"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.'' Quote Jimbo's user page. --] <small>]</small> 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** How then are these open proxies any different than other open proxies? ] 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***A question to challenge the mind! It's easy for me to say "they are" but I'll get back with a more substantial answer soon. --] <small>]</small> 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****Frankly, the only difference is that more people use them. From a technical standpoint they're the same. Beyond vandalism, we block open proxies because we can't trace edits from them. ] ] 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *****I know they're the same from the technical point of view but I just don't like the idea of locking anyone who uses AOL out. Ultimately what I think doesn't matter. A fact I'm used to. --] <small>]</small> 18:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****** But we're not doing that. We're blocking anyone who uses their proxy. Installing Firefox alone gets around that. ] ] 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****** I wonder, do we have any estimate how many productive anon edits we get from AOL? ] 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * and sums it up pretty clearly. ] 18:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Holy blasphemy, why does everything we do require Jimbo's approval? Editors with good intentions are regsitering accounts, vandals are being stopped, so feel free to whine and complain about something that's justified and has support, but you are just wasting your time. // ] (]) 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed with Pilotguy. 98% of computers with AOL have another browser (question: if the user can't figure out how to open the other browser, can they figure out how to edit Wikicode properly?); and what's more, they're ''not blocked from editing'' - they can register a user account. In the cost/benefit analysis, I believe the encyclopedia has far more to gain by soft-blocking these IP addresses. -]<sup>]]</sup> 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Administrators can now edit the block reason at ]. If you do edit it, please keep it as short and simple as possible, and remember that many AOL users don't have a strong understanding of proxies and may believe they are personally targeted. —<small>{]} ] 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| '''Indefinite blocks?@#!@?#@????''' | |||
| I regularly edit (logged out) using AOL - and prefer the anonymity for sevearl reasons. In the last couple weeks; however, I have found fewer and fewer pages available to edit as the blocks are now being placed indefinately. '''This is bad for Misplaced Pages.''' | |||
| # AOL attracts mainstream (i.e. non-computer geek) internet users. Forcing them to create a username to edit is just one more roadblock and goes against what I feel is a fundamental value of Misplaced Pages - allowing anyone to edit (who does so in good faith) | |||
| # What may seem like a simple task of creating a username is not one. I (being a known computer-geek) am often asked by those over 50 (which I see regularly in my vocation) if people on the internet can track you - if I tell them my name can they com find me - if I give an email address what can they do to me. And although I reassure them it isn't that scary and give them guidelines. Forcing these users to register means we will lose many of them - and the valuable contributions their age and experience can bring to the project | |||
| # Occasional editors (like me) who value the anonymity that AOL brings (through the use of an open proxy) - where 1) every edit I make has to stand on its own - my edits are subject to increased scrutiny because of the IP address, 2) I can edit where I want without being harrassed on my talk page (note I know that this can be a bad thing because of vandals) - and can make edits without the baggage of a "reputation" or a POV - I can ask hard questions to positions I may even support without risking my reputation, etc. These editors make substantial contributions to Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :If we want to allow open proxies for anonymity or whatever then we should allow all open proxies. I don't see any reason to single out AOL open proxies. Such a move is patently unfair... ] 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are many technically less skilled people who do not understand what "proxy" is or where to change the settings, yet they can still write good texts .... their contribution will probably lack wikilinks, categories and such stuff, but still may be valuable if they are experts on some topic (Much smaller expertise on article topic is needed for tasks like adding links or categories, so potentially many users can fix such article). | |||
| ::Also, due to new measure against impersonation, it is sometimes hard to register - when registering this my name, I got many messages like "Ook! Ook! is too similar to existing user Hhkkhhkk" till I gave up, picked up some nonsense name and headed to request a name change. There are many users here and this similarity detection quite limits what you can pick up .... many user may be discouraged by this for editing. | |||
| ::--] 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE reverse these indefinite blocks.''' | |||
| Normally about 1/10 pages I try to edit, I am blocked from editing - I just go on to the next thing - no problem. But lately about 9/10 I am now blocked from editing. This is bad policy and reverses the long standing tradition of allowing editing from AOL. | |||
| Thank you for listening. ]<small> ]</small> 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I'm aware, this change shouldn't affect you at all. If anything it might make things better. Also, if this does cause problems for you, your only real option is to ask AOL to either use a different proxy for their subscribers, allow you to not use a proxy, or go back to the pre-open proxy days. If my ISP in NZ or a friends one in MY forced me to use a proxy which also happened to be an open proxy, I am pretty sure that I would have had no luck in convincing people to unban the open proxy so I don't get why we should make an exception for AOL. BTW, I guess you've read ] and tried it's solutions right? (since you have an an account I really don't get why you have any problems, just login from secure or use a different browser which doesn't use proxies) ] 13:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse'''. Open proxies should be blocked no matter how many people use them. Provide a decent explanation and rewrite ] in a form that assumes good faith and tries to be helpful to AOLers instead of starting with "Abusive users from America Online (AOL) can be difficult to deal with". ] ] 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * May I remind the mob that these are not open proxies, but rather the original poster has said they are ''effectively'' open proxies. Any proxy on the internet is "effectively" an open proxy if people are able to use it, as they are in this case. Why the distinction between "i have to enter said proxy into my browser's configs", or "i have to be added to an ackle" and this situation? In any of the above cases, it's a trivial effort to make use of the proxy. By that logic, I could say that any keyboard can be utilized to vandalize the wikipedia, all you have to do is go to BBUY and attach it to your machine. Yes, I am aware of ''reductio ad absurdium'', but indulge me. <b>... </b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Do you realize that this change was precipitated by AOL making their client software free so that anyone can now use (or abuse) their proxy network at no cost? That makes their network an ], i.e. an internet proxy that effectively anyone can use for free. AOL's proxy network was always problematic for us, but it didn't get blocked until they decided to make it open. So now it is blocked like many other open proxies and proxy networks on the internet in accordance with our long standing policies. ] 23:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Do you understand there is an important semantic difference between "an open proxy" and "effectively an open proxy"? There's a critical step here. One that requires forethought and malice, which we '']'' of anyone. Even AOL. This is completely inane. It's a damn lynching. <b>... </b><span style="background-color: #11cbc4;width:52px;height:16px;font-size:12px;p{text-align:center}">]:]</span> 06:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****Then I have no idea what distinction you see between what AOL has now done and any other open proxy. ] 06:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****But most normal open proxies have legitimate users (why would you create a proxy if you weren't intending to serve users) who may be forced to use said proxies by the ISPs. The issue here is no assuming anything. People who edit using normal open proxies, even if they are not legitimate users of said proxy may not be doing it because they want to vandalise. They may be doing it because they want anonymity, because they are banned from[REDACTED] at their school/work/whatever etc. ] 12:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Fine then, it ''IS'' an open proxy. If I am able to edit from it without having to pay for the service and it masks my real IP address, it's an "open" "proxy" which is to be blocked. ] 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse''' these blocks per the commenters above and ]. AOL users can use our secure login ala Wiktionary or standard browser as already mentioned. 04:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse''' we have a clear policy on open proxies and I have yet to see any good reason to ignore it. And might I respectably suggest that some users appear to have failed to understand the issue. AOL only recently changed their service to make their proxies effectively open proxies. Whatever has happened in the past is therefore irrelevant. What is relevant is that we have a policy intended to prevent problems before they occur and we are simply abiding by the policy. ] 13:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *If we're doing this, we should do what Wiktionary does and put advice to AOL'ers at the top of the ]. I'm not too sure about the move in general, but I can't think of anything better for the time being, so it's probably best just to get the documentation sorted. --] 13:11, 22 November 2006 (]]]) | |||
| **Probablly wise to speak to the devs before putting something like that on the en main page (or even the blocked page), I belive secure.wikimedia.org is served by only a single server. ] 13:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see much point they will find any instructions when they try to edit. Otherwise no need to advertise AOL on the main page.] 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Endorse and more fully impliment. Indeed we do have a clear policy on open proxies and we need to follow it here. Account creation needs to be blocked from AOL's open proxies too. ''Then'' we can work on technical solutions such as making sure the XFF headers work or that people can use the secure login to identify the actual IP address. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Centrx neutralised account creation on the 21st. I think that settles the matter unless someone can come up with a better solution.] 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I use AOL. This means I...have to go...to Mozilla Firefox? Just to edit WP? No! ] <small>(]|]|])</small> 02:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You'll wish you never looked back... ] 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Endorse''' per above. ] 06:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Hallelujah!''' per sanity. This should have been done as soon as the blocking software was upgraded. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 09:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Does this conflict with autoblocks from a registered user using AOL? --''']''' (] - ]) 19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Yes it overrides it, IIRC autoblocks are bottom of the pile, so these have the effect of stopping autoblocks impacting signed in users in those ranges, given the dynamic nature of the IP addresses autoblocks served little purpose on AOL so this is what we would want. --] 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::My concern was that a signed-in user would be blocked (for vandalism or something). Then that user tries to edit and is autoblocked on an AOL iP. Does that shorten the "indefinite" block of the AOL IPs? --''']''' (] - ]) 19:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The effect of this is to make autoblocks irrelevant, a user gets blocked and that block lasts as long as the admin puts in, if an autoblock occurs these blocks being higher up just keep the IP blocked but don't blocked signed in user. (The block of the user is higher up the tree again so the account which was blocked remains blocked for the correct duration). --] 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Comment'''. I'm not sure what my feelings are on this. Is this proposal to ban ALL AOL users from using Misplaced Pages unless they register an account? (And I should note from personal experience that registering an account does NOT make one immune from IP blocks, having been knocked offline a dozen times over the last few years). While I can understand the rationale, I think if you're going to block one particular ISP's ranges, then we might as well once again restart the debate over banning non-registered users from editing Misplaced Pages, period, an idea I personally support. ] 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:Other ISPs don't provide access for free. AOL does through their new broadband software. ] 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *: This is not about blocking one particular ISPs ranges, as noted above AOL users who use FireFox etc. get allocated a semistatic IP outside of the ranges of these proxies and can edit without issue. The problem with these proxies is that AOL has essentialy opened them up and made them available to anyone regardless of the ISP they pay and without passing the originating IP details through, i.e. they have become anonymous open proxies open to everyone. --] 19:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Indef blocked''' {{vandal|172.201.21.42}} per above. --''']''' (] - ]) 21:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** Erm, that isn't within the proxy ranges. It's an AOL address but one of those which is semi-static for a single user, it can be blocked for longer than 15 minutes. --] 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***This user has already been blocked for something, should I unblock for shorter? --''']''' (] - ]) 21:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****Reblocked for 48 hours. --''']''' (] - ]) 22:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I fully endorse the blocking of the AOL ranges, and I'm actually with 23skidoo on this one. It only takes about a minute to create an account, all you need is a username, password, and you're done! No email needed, no confirmation (except for the little picture). If AOL has decided to open this up to all people in the world, as in anyone can use the proxy, that constitutes an open proxy. I applaud the admins who had the guts to implement the blocks, and the account creation blocks. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 00:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I continue to be disappointed that a change such as this would a) be implemented without discussion, b) refuses to acknowledge there are non-geeks trying to use wikipedia, c) disrespects our heratage that anyone can edit, d) does not assume good faith, e) shows no coordination with the wikimedia foundation in the use of XFF headers. | |||
| '''WHAT IS GOING ON!!!''' | |||
| Spending just a few minutes researching this and guess what - this has been an issue for sometime and a technical solution is in the works with AOL. Are you admins here that cluless about how to sign-up for mailing lists, and yet expect AOL users (usually less computer savy than most) to figure out 1) that they need to use another browser (what is that they will ask, etc.) and 2) be able to find it and then 3) be able to navigate to the same page they were on before. | |||
| , and days after you start blocking all these IP's (contrary to long established practice and without discussion re its impact), . ]<small> ]</small> 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Spend a few minutes researching this (or just read the start of this thread), and guess what the situation has changed since July in that AOL have opened up their network to anyone not just direct subscribers. This is what has prompted the change. We don't expect people to figure out the stuff about changing browsers etc. We have a page dedicate to it prominantly listed in the block message, do we expect contributors to be able to read? Yes. As for (3) that isn't about being "tech savvy" that's about being able to navigate wikipedia, if they can't do that either we've got bigger problems to worry about (the site being unnavigable to the non tech-savvy) or there is a good change they aren't going to be able to edit coherrently. As for the XFF header stuff, yes we all know about that and it isn't supported by[REDACTED] yet, but when that is fixed the IP they appear to come from won't be the proxies, so blocking the proxies will have no effect. Blocking the proxies for anon accounts is the right thing to do, it resolves a short term problem and is rendered moot when the XFF changes gets implemented in mediawiki. --] 10:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| BTW, real vandals will just find something else, and the lack of openness is going to deter many legitimate users. ]<small> ]</small> 21:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] out of control (edit stalking/unrealistic copyright requests) == | |||
| === Original complaint === | |||
| I am asking other editors for help with this problem as this has gotten way out of control and, in my opinion, amounts to nothing less than ] by another user. | |||
| The matter of copyright material, my edits, images, and my user page continues to fester and ] has launched into nothing less than a stalking campaign against every image I have uploaded. Recent activities include: | |||
| *Declaring two gold circles next to eachother a copyright violation against ] because they resemble the ] of ]. Clearly ridiculous as anyone can draw geometric shapes and Paramount can not possible hold the copyright on a picture of two gold circles . | |||
| *Demanding personal information about the people who either a) verified that a photograph was public and not copyrighted and b) insisting on specific contact info (down to the name, address, and phone number) of the people who took the photograph . In two cases, one contact was a friend of my late grandfather and the other an ex-finance. Even when told this, Durin demanded to contact both and have thier personal info posted on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| *Targeting every edit and every image I have recently been involved with . (Also See:]). | |||
| *Durin intejected himself into a totally unrelated issue on ] regarding housing image graphics appearing in the game . I was attempting to resolve a fair use issue with another user and was working with a 3rd user to reach a compromise. Durin appeared, posting about the image and questioning me about my edits. In that rare case, Durin was actually correct in what he was saying, but I was distressed that he was following my edits this closely and becoming involoved in an article that he otherwise would have paid no attention too but become intersted only becuase I was associated with it. This is, in my view, "following me around" to different articles: the very definition of Wiki-Stalking. | |||
| *Durin completely freaked me out when he posted for all to see that my last name was visable on a user pic I have on my page . I must add, unless someone is looking ''really closely'', that would probably go unnoticed. I can only assume that Durin downloaded my picture and zoomed in on my name. Granted, he then provided me with a picture where my nametag was blanked out, but why look in the first place? | |||
| *Simple put, Durin needs to leave me and my user page, and my edits alone. I have told this user at least 3 times that I am a member of the military deployed to the Middle East and could lose my access to Misplaced Pages for weeks or months at any given time, depending on my deployment schedule. Durin has not made a single response to this and has even posted messages to my talk page, then demanded answers if they were not there within a 24 hour time frame . He has also openly stated that he will continue to follow my every edits and that he sees me as a "problem user" . I am an Admin on this site and have written some great articles. Durin seems to have targeted me based on an original dispute regarding flags displayed on my user page. This user needs to back off and leave me alone. Other editors, please help. Thank you. -] 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Responses=== | |||
| **My only question is this: are you confident that your images are properly tagged and identified? ] ] 15:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***No, I'm not. Some of them are wrong. I am just feeling that my edits are being targeted by this user based on an original dispute about flags being displayed on ]. I at first listened to Durin and tried to find images I could display. When I began posting these, I think Durin had an idea that I "outwitted him" and began this campaign. -] 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****No. The seals and flags that you have been putting on your page would be absolutely fine if you had requested release under a free license from the various copyright holders of the images. I have on a large number of occasions pointed out to you that this needs to be done. I have pointed to the templates that you can use in requesting permissions. I have outlined the policy that supports this. Recently, I have asked you three times what permissions you asked for. You have refused to answer saying that since you are on deployment, you can not check. It's a simple question, and does not require checking. In general, did you ask for a free license release or did you ask for permission to use on Misplaced Pages? To date, there's no answer. From what evidence I have seen, it appears that what was asked for was permission to use on Misplaced Pages, which is not compatible with our policies. I've been trying hard to get confirmation from you about this, but I have not been able to get a response. I even offered a compromise position where we revert back to fair use, and you send the permission letters to ] when you had opportunity, so OTRS could evaluate and retag, allowing a third party to evaluate what permissions you received. I have been trying hard here to get these permissions clarified, but have been completely unsuccessful in gaining any response from you on this. --] 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **we need an efficient "image police". and Durin didn't 'completely freak out' . But I tend to agree that wasn't brilliant. All in all, not much to see here, recommend that Husnock tag his images watertightly from the beginning, and that Durin might give him a break over tiny Starwars rank insignia. Both users are admins, so neither needs to be afraid of "biting a newbie", and reasonable maturity, and properlly tagged image uploads, should be expected. ] <small>]</small> 15:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*'''Re: Two gold pips''' Husnock himself in an earlier edit acknowledged that the original came from Paramount. He created the tag {{tl|PD-StarTrekRank}} (which has since been deleted as wholly improper) which contained the text "This image is that of a rank insignia used in Star Trek. Over the past 40 years, Paramount Pictures have released most such images to the public domain. Also, such rank designs normally consist of stripes, geometric circles, and other shapes which can be easily recreated and hence are ineligible for copyright." Can a circle be copyrighted? No. Can a rectangle be copyrighted? No. Use them together with particular colors in a design? Absolutely. The notion that simply because an image contains geometric shapes that it can not be copyrighted is utterly false. I don't really care if that counts as brilliant or not. It's blatantly obvious from Husnock's earlier own taggings that the image is originally Paramount's. | |||
| :*As to the rest of this, I'm starting an RfC. This situation has gone on long enough, and despite my best efforts to work collaboratively with Husnock and keep things calm and cool, it's exploded. --] 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :**As stated four times now, I am at present in the ] and could lose access to Misplaced Pages tonight, tomorrow, or next month. I would not have time to follow an RfC or post to it or check it everyday. That is one of the points, you knew I was deployed and yet did this image targeting campaign and demanded answers if they were not posted within a day. Start it if you want, but I doubt I will be able to contribute. -] 16:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with dab and add that stating in public that Husnock's identity was visible in an image was a mistake. Maybe innocent, maybe not, but a mistake nonetheless. ] 16:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Husnock has uploaded an image before that contained his last name (in addition to the one already mentioned), this one in the title of the image. Since apparently me noting an image that has the name would be a problem, I am not going to note it here. But, it's out there. He has substantial personal information on his userpage that could readily lead to identifying him. I provided a copy of the image that did NOT have his last name so that he could better conceal his true identity. When I made mention of it, I did not state his last name. To date, Husnock has not used this image in lieu of the image that has his last name. If he was so concerned about the revelation of his last name, he would have deleted the original image and used the image that I provided him that did not have his last name on it. The claims that I am violating his privacy by revealing his last name are utterly false; he's the one doing so. I tried to HELP him not reveal it, but he's refused the help instead allowing the name to appear. --] 16:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Re: Husnock on deployment''': That a user is on deployment does not in any way mean that we should suspend operations here on Misplaced Pages. There are more than 50 problematic images uploaded and/or modified by Husnock. Are we to let these problems sit forever if he should vanish from the project for a year due to being on deployment? What if he vanishes and we don't know why? Do we let copyright violations sit forever? An argument before a judge where we said we did not correct the copyright problem because the user that generated the copyright problem was no longer with the project will not hold water. We fix problems as we find them, regardless of how active or inactive the user who created the problem is. | |||
| *'''Re: RfC''' I do NOT want to start an RfC. I really don't. But the reality is that this situation has been going on for months and months and months. I am not the only person who has approached Husnock regarding copyright issues. I have tried desperately to keep things amicable. Despite all my efforts, the situation has exploded. I don't know what else to do. These copyright problems exist. If I correct them, I'm stalking him. If I talk to him about them, I'm not assuming good faith. If I note that he is the source of the copyright problems, I'm conducting a personal attack on him. If I create a user subpage of mine to help me work through the images he has uploaded and/or modified, it's the "most insulting thing I've seen on Misplaced Pages from another established user". At most points (not all, but most) of this Husnock has been obstructionist and antagonistic. Now I'm being accused of revealing personal information....which he revealed himself. Not only that, but I tried to help him NOT reveal the information, but I'm still accused. If anyone has any suggestions on a route other than RfC, I'm all ears. --] 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Stepping forward as a Global War on Terrorism veteran and an admin, I think the fair thing to do would be to open the ] with the disclaimer that this editor's Internet access may be interrupted due to the deployment. Let the RFC proceed at a more flexible pace than usual. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not have the expertise to review the images tag-by-tag but I would like to see this resolved if possible without an RfC, without undue distraction to an armed forces member on active duty, and without further dispute or dissension. Would it be possible for this to be addressed by temporarily removing any problematic images with the understanding that copies would be kept somewhere off-line and Husnock would be given an opportunity to re-post and retag them upon his return from duty? If this is agreeable then perhaps an image-savvy admin without prior involvement in this dispute could be responsible for determining which images need to be removed temporarily. ] 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Either way is fine with me. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Suggestion to resolve this dispute=== | |||
| I've been chatting with some admins regarding a way to resolve this and we seem to agree that an ] would be an unnecessarily long and drawn out process. | |||
| As such only solution I can see is as admins we get both of you to agree to leave each other alone (so ] stops direct activity on any and all ] images) and then we get an independant admin that knows image policy really well (] comes straight to my mind for example) to look over ] existing image contribs as well as a review of the methodology he uses to tag future uploads - with an agreement that the decision made by this admin be fully binding by you both (so if the admin decides Durin is over-reacting and trolling Husnock's images he will drop the subject - or, on the flip side if he/she decides to speedy delete the lot per ] then Husnock will also drop the subject and live with the decision.) | |||
| I cant see a better way to resolve that will be agreeable to all parties personally... thoughts? ] 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem I see with this is that it implies some sort of impropriety on Durin's part. His actions have been entirely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. Assigning someone else to this seems unneeded and likely to impair the proper enforcement of long standing copyright policy. - ]</small> (]) 18:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Creating a project page about me to expose any and all of my image edits to scrutiny, insisting that I post information on Misplaced Pages which I a) dont have time to research or b) isn't available to me since I now live in the Middle East, demanding e-mail addresses and phone numbers for every person I have ever talked or written to about photos, following my every edit and stating he will tag and delete images even if I'm not here to defend or update them, and last but not least openly accusing me of breaking copyright law, implying that I am knowingly posting false information on Misplaced Pages and perhaps even telling lies about my sources, and then bringing to the worlds attention that my last name is visable not once, but twice, on Misplaced Pages...these actions are not entiely consistent with the stated goals and wishes of the foundation. -] 19:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*1) Your edits are already open to scrutiny via ]. | |||
| :::*2) We expect people to provide contact information for images released under a free license from a copyright holder. You've been informed of this multiple times by people other than myself. Regardless of your current status, we need that information. If it can't be provided, you can always upload the images later when you do have it at the ready. Further, I asked you for one contact point; the copyright authority whom you contacted at City of Corpus Christi. You wouldn't provide it not because you don't have time to research but because you felt it violated privacy of a municipal copyright authority whose telephone and e-mail contact information is publicly available on a website I previously referenced. | |||
| :::*3) I have followed your image edits, in complete compliance (not violation of) ] where it says "(stalking) does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." In conducting reviews of your image edits to date, I have reviewed 146 images. 58 of them have or had problems of one sort or another, or approximately 40% of them. If this is not justification for reviewing all of your image edits, I do not know what would constitute such. | |||
| :::*4) Not being here to defend an image is not an affirmative defense in court. If it's a copyright violation, it's a copyright violation whether you are here to defend it or not. The work of Misplaced Pages must continue regardless of your availability. We can't suspend work here while you are on deployment. | |||
| :::*5) I have never implied you have posted false information and have clarified that to you before. I have stated and continue to maintain that we do not know what permissions you asked for. You refuse to provide this information. I have never maintained that you did not contact the respective agencies, nor have I ever claimed or even inferred that you lied about your sources. | |||
| :::*6) I provided you with an image that did not have your last name. If you were concerned about the privacy of your last name, you would delete your original (at least) and use the alternate image I provided to you. In effect, it's as if you spilled a drink on your shirt, I noted that you did, provided you a towel to clean it up, and you blame me for spilling the drink. You uploaded the original image that contained the name, not I. I observed to you that it contained your name, and thought you'd remove the image. Note that in bringing this to your attention I never mentioned your name, just that it was there. By deleting the image, you would have removed the name. Instead you chose and continue to choose to not delete the image and continue to host it on your user page. Additionally, another image still in use by you has your last name in the title of the image. These facts juxtaposed with your insistence that I violated your privacy can not be reconciled. | |||
| :::*I recommend you accept the proposal by ] and the proposed mediation by ]. If you seek some sort of condemnation of my activities with respect to you, I respectfully submit (as per the top of this page) that you are in the wrong forum. ] is the next step. --] 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*Chairboy, thanks but no thanks :) The dispute with Husnock is sufficient that I do not feel further interactions with him by me on these issues is likely to be a pleasant experience for either of us. This is work that can be done by a third party, and done in such a way that causes less offense (I hope). --] 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ah, also ] comes to mind as a good choice as a third party also... :) ] 18:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*This is all acceptable to me. I'll now continue my review of his images at ] but will not conduct any work as a result of those reviews. This will make the work that Zscout370 does, or whomever takes this on, considerably less. --] 18:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :**I'll accept the task of mediator/third party. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :***Pointless addition from me: I've looked at Durin's edit pattern and, frankly, I can't see anything objectionable; quite the reverse - Durin has acted properly and conscientiously to protect the project. The edits can be defined as "stalking" or as "proper actions by an experienced and respected editor". Only the latter makes for the building of an encyclopedia and only the latter is correct. Just my tuppenceworth. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 21:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::See my comment above the section semi-break which might possibly be helpful, I hope. ] 23:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I suggested a variation on this; that the images in question be retagged as fair use, and Husnock could present to ] with what permissions he asked for and received on each image and let OTRS retag the images away from fair use as appropriate by their reasoning and reading of the permissions received. I suggested this to Husnock yesterday. He's ignored the suggestion, and given that he has responded to this thread since your proposal was put forth and since Glen S's was put forth, it appears he is not accepting these proposals either. So what now? --] 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For the record that's exactly why I made the suggestion above - simply because without an independant 3rd party Husdock will never agree to Durin's suggestions as he believes there's malice invloved ''']''' 00:10, November 22, 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just a few suggestions for Durin here. If in future you find an image with someone's name on it, and you are in a discussion like this with them, it might be best to approach the issue more elliptically. I was going to suggest you ask someone you trust to point it out to them instead, but that is fraught with ethical problems. The way you handled it, you might have thought you were doing a favour, but something like "are you aware that some of the images you have uploaded have your name visible on them?" and then waiting for a response, might have been received better than a "it's this image here, and I've done a new version for you". The 'waiting for a response' bit is crucial to avoid the scenario where the other person gets affronted and feels you've overstepped the mark. I personally don't think Durin did anything wrong here. Getting others involved earlier might have helped. ] 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *For the text transactions of how I notified him, please see ]. I did almost as you suggest above, with the exception that I did point out the image in the first message. I can see your point, but not telling him which image would send him on a needle in a haystack chase; he's worked on over 1500 images. We did try to get others involved on several occasions. First, it went to ] on 14 November. Nobody responded there other than ourselves. From there, Husnock took it to ] on 16 November. One person responded there. Seeing such little traffic, I took it to ] on 17 November, where two people responded. My opinion; most people do not like to deal with these copyright issues, so they get little attention. It wasn't until today, when it positively exploded, that it got attention. --] 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Yes, it is getting attention now isn't it. Getting more people working in this area would be a good idea. Image copyright does seem to be one of those areas that really needs more people, but is chronically understaffed. My sympathies are with you in this dispute. I don't think the accusation of harassment is warranted. I do sympathise with Husnock as well, as he obviously does feel aggrieved, but it should be clear to him now that it is notjust you that has concerns about image tagging and copyright issues. ] 02:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***I was the third party mentioned by ] in the ] discussions that had developed about those images and additionally I have already ] to review any images. If ] ] and ] agree I'll act as an independant 3rd party to resolve these image issues. By this Durin and Geni ] with the issues, I'll assess whats required to comply with the license and talk directly with Husnock. In the event of Husnock becoming unavailable the issues are still being addressed, where because of Husnocks unavailability the only option is to delete I'll organise it to be deleted and fix any affected articles including User pages. ] 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Mediation by Zscout or even Geri would be fine. To clarify something, I'm actually not so upset about the images being wrongly tagged...some of them probably are. The whole point here is that this user seemed to ''target'' me and did a massive campaign to investigate every edit I have ever done. I will always feel this is becuase he wanted to "teach me a lesson" or had something against me stemming from the original dispute about flags on my user page. He then demanded immediate replies and posted tags stated that all these images would be deleted in seven days if enough info was not provided. I told him over and over again my time on this site is short and I would have to research this more deeply, needing much more than 7 days to fix these images. He dismissed this, saying I was using my deployment as an excuse. Its not an excuse, I am helping to fight a war in the Middle East, normally work 12-16 hour days, and only get on Misplaced Pages when I can. Then, when I arrive to enjoy the site, I find this user creating a policy page about me and demanding answers to questions posted the day before, before I had any time to review or research them. Then we get to this whole contact thing- I provided Durin with basic contact info. I told him I had written cities, had gotten some e-mails and letters. I told him I would have to check, again it would take time. I also talked to JAG officers and PAO officers with the Navy who '''assured''' me that the United States Navy had every right to copy and distribute city images of Japan and Korea which had been released by thier government to ours. This was all dismissed. Specific info was demanded and, when I couldn't provide it right away, I was being evasive or when I '''DID''' give the info, Durin would make a blanket statement that it was wrong or he would need names, phone numbers, and e-mails even for images uploaded years ago. Let us not forget, he hs not said a '''word''' about the image whre I flat out provided everything he asked for...the name, address, and how to contact the photographer (this was my ex-fiance). he uses the Corpus Christi case over and over, but that contact who gave me the city info is an elderly woman who works part time in the city office and got the info for me as a favor. No way was I going to hand over her name and number to Durin or post it on this site. So, in the end, others feel free to review my images. I will fix them when I can and provide info when its available, robably over a 6 or 7 month time frame. As for Durin, he can kindly leave me and my edits alone and his project page on me should be deleted. -] 10:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We appreciate your efforts, but you are not being persecuted. Every image needs to follow the image policy, and when someone sees a substantial portion that do not, it is absolutely correct to proceed with further efforts to fix the problem. That has been explained to you, so please stop acting like you are being persecuted. I recommend stepping back from the emotions of this and just working to resolve the problem. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree, I don't think anyone is targetting you. What I think may have happened is Durin noticed one or a few of your images were of concern. Given this, he or she probably decided to do a review of all your images. This is not about targeting you, it's about targeting a serious of images which the editor has belief to be may be of concern. Similarly, many RC and other vandalism patrollers will look through the contribs of someone who has vandalised or added other inappropriate info (NPOV, copyvios eyc) to see if this is the only instance and to correct any vandalism which has not been corrected and perhaps provide further warnings or even request a block if it's merited. Again, this is not about targeting anyone but about identifying a problem. Having identified possible problems, it is normal practice for an editor to take steps to correct them. There are several requirements for images and if any of yours didn't appear to meet them, Durin and other editors can and should make an effort to correct this problem. Generally speaking, the best way to do so is to approach the author first. I'm sure you would have preferred this rather then Durin just tagging them for deletion ] 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Question: as part of my mediator status, can I recreate some of the images that are in dispute? The problem I see with most of the flag related images that despite getting permission from the cities in question, the flags were drawn for the FOTW website by people who expressed their work not to be used commercially (which has been disallowed by Jimbo since May of 2005). Plus, some of the symbols drawn by Husnock are from other countries, such as Japan. We need to clarify that situation, so we could use some assistance with users from Japan. I am at college now, so I will not have time in the next few days to crack out images and upload (Durin and Husnock, email me). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Begging for help=== | |||
| On 22 November 2006, ] and ] left notes on ]'s talk page indicating to him that he was in "inappropriate territory" . Prior to this, Husnock made a claim that he feared I am revealing personal information about him to outside parties (see ] item #9). Since these comments by Taxman and Mindspillage, Husnock has further expanded on this "fear" and continues to maintain that I not only am I doing this, but that his family is possibly in danger (, third paragraph and second to last paragraph). | |||
| This is a completely unfounded accusation. I have done no such thing nor would I ever do any such thing. Husnock himself contacted a number of different city agencies attempting to get permissions to use various different images. From his posting of the content of one of the response letters, it is a fact that in at least one of those contacts he used his USN rank and last name (see ], second section, quoted text). His release of his own name into the public therefore has factual basis. | |||
| Husnock has made no less than 10 distinct accusations against me, ranging from personal attacks, to slander, to stalking, to threatening his family. I have repeatedly asked Husnock to stop making accusations like this against me. Nevertheless it continues apace. | |||
| I have been told by a number of parties through various conversations that continued interaction with Husnock is not likely to bring any light, only heat. Agreed. I have been told by the same than an RfC is not likely to bring any light either. Additionally, I have been told by Husnock that he can not participate in an RfC. | |||
| I'm begging others to step in and please, please, please stop this ceaseless onslaught upon me. I am not recommending specific actions. Just that something needs to be done. --] 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Durin, I really think there is no need to worry. As far as I can see, you have acted appropriately throughout. I can vouch for the fact that you were not "targetting" Husnock, since I know that you have, for ''months'' been removing non-free images from user space, not just Husnock's. (With a slightly red face, I have to admit that I was one of the careless people that you had to do it to!) Most of the people who do that (Jkelly is one example) provoke a lot of indignation from a ''very'' small number of users, regardless of how "right" or how civil they are. In every case where Husnock has made accusations about your behaviour on Misplaced Pages, your behaviour stands up to scrutiny, with one small exception (see next paragraph). In the case of your behaviour ''off'' Misplaced Pages, he has ''not'', as far as I can see, actually made any accusation, just a hint that you ''might'' have released his name publicly. I can't imagine that anybody here will seriously think it's possible that you did, and he admits himself that it "probably isn't you", so what are you worrying about? | |||
| :Where I think you may have been wrong, though certainly without malice, was in telling him publicly that his last name was visible on a certain photo. It would have been more prudent to have said that in a private e-mail. However, it is now a week since you told him that. He has admin powers, and could ''easily'' have deleted that photo. (You were kind enough to offer him a replacement where his name could not be seen.) Instead, he chose to leave the photo there, and to post on this noticeboard the diff where you tell him which photo it is. An admin who was really concerned about that potential risk to his privacy would have deleted the image immediately, and ''then'' complained about your post and about the possibility that people could have gone to the image in the few minutes or hours that elapsed between your drawing attention to it and his deletion. Since he has ''not'' deleted it, and has drawn extra attention to it as part of his list of accusations against you, it's hard to believe that he's all that concerned. | |||
| :Another point is that when an admin such as Durin is conscientious enough to take on the extremely thankless task of enforcing copyright policy, it's absolutely normal that when a user resists him, reverts him, protests, etc., that the admin will then look into his other images to see if there are other problems. That is ''not'' harassment or stalking. | |||
| :A final point is that the "ex-fiancee" argument and the "friend of my late grandfather" argument might increase sympathy, but cannot change policy. If an image source cannot be verified, the image should be deleted until such time as it can be verified, or until it can be replaced by a properly-sourced image. My understanding is that Jimbo is anxious that copyright policy be strictly enforced. Full sympathy to someone who doesn't want to pass on details of his ex-fiancee or his grandfather's friend, but are those images really essential to Misplaced Pages? Is it really essential that images without proper source should remain simply because we sympathize with the reasons for not providing the source? | |||
| :I agree that something need to be done, as this is getting out of hand, and I urge others to give whatever help they can in this situation. ] ] 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I must clarify that I never said Durin had threatened my family or had revealed info to the outside world. Tha is simply untrue. I stated that I was afraid he had revealed info about me when he e-mailed Corpus Christi about thier image, but didnt know for sure. I then stated to him that I was getting scared of this whole situation becuase ''someone'' had emailed an nrelated contact, asking who I was using my last name, statng that I "worked for Misplaced Pages" and "wanted to find me". I '''NEVER''' said that was Durin and even clarified twice on his talk page that it probably wasnt him. Also, in resposne to concerns that he was getting fried up, I toned down the language of my sub-page ] removing references to harrasment and instead clarifying that it was a record of the dispute. I did all this to defuse the situation as I am leaving Wiki after the holidays and probably wont be here to continue this dipsute until next year. I am leaving this to ZScout and others. I am allowed to think what I think and I think I was targeted by this user for various reasons and that he was unreassonabe and unrealsitic in demanding such information ASAP even when told it would take weeks or months to verify in light of my situation. My supage speaks for itself, the record is there of what I believe he has done for the benefit of mediators and others. Durin is also concerned I am border-line making legal threats which simply isnt true either. I ahve never made a legal threat against Durin and it would silly to do so since I live overseas now and couldnt reasonably pursue it. I leave everyone with this scenario then and perhaps they can see my side of it: | |||
| ::"You are a United States servive member working overseas in the Middle east. You love Misplaced Pages and log on when you can and edit it. One day, someone questions where your article images are coming from. You try to answer them, but your answers aren't good enough. You give the best information you can, but there is always something that is either stated to be wrong or simply "can't be the case". You're then told a third of your images will be deleted in 7 days if proper information is not given. You tell people that you are overseas, you ask for more time. You are told no time can be given, a deployment is not "an excuse". You are then asked for very personal information like the phone numbers and addresses of those close to you or of people yo've known in the past. You then discover a page where every image you have ever uploaded is listed for "review", as if you've committed some kind of offense to Misplaced Pages that must now be looked at. And, lastly, you get an e-mail saying someone is out there, in the real world, asking questions about you and trying to find you because you've edited on Misplaced Pages." | |||
| ::Thats where I'm coming from, maybe now people see why this is disturbing. With that, I leave this to others. Happy Turkey Day and I'm off to do duties elsewhere. -] 20:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That being the case, then you should find no problem removing a number of entries you have made since they have nothing to do with me yet you've tied them to me. In particular you should remove: | |||
| :::*Elements of item #9 from ], beginning with "quite possibly". | |||
| :::*Everthing in paragraph 3 of beginning from "Rather the opposite". | |||
| :::*The last two sentences of paragraph #5 of . | |||
| :::Since these things have nothing to do with me, per your assertions above, then continuing to allow their presence here does not make any sense, would you not agree? --] 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Husnock's accusations against me continue apace . --] 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] deleted, what now?== | |||
| Since this template/warning has been deleted, what should we now do when editors continually alter warning messages? This came up just minutes ago when I saw edit which changes a blatant vandal warning message into a praising thank you note. What now? I sent a {{tl|notyours}} message, but that's really not the template's purpose. -- ]] <small>17:08, 24 November 2006 (])</small> | |||
| :Leave a hand-written message. -- ] 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks ;). Apologies for not being clear; what I meant to ask was if this is still a ''block-able offense''. Does this situation warrant a report to WP:AIV for example? -- ]] <small>03:29, 29 November 2006 (])</small> | |||
| :::Removing warnings is not by itself a blockable offence. Changing other people's warnings into praise is vandalism, and blockable, though. ] ] 10:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think the issue all along is how to keep a record of a person's bad, but not-yet-blockabl behavior, without myself watching a dozen user's talk pages every day. I think the only solution for now is to leave 1 second blocks with explanations in the Block log, if a person insists on removing warnings. —]→] • 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Putting the title of the template in caps in the edit summary makes it easy enough to review past messages. ] 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would strongly disagree with the idea of giving one-second blocks. If people have not done something to warrant a block, they have a right not to have their block log tainted. The Wr template was often used to harass; indeed I saw more use of it for that purpose than for any legitimate purpose. If the editor who is being warned is editing from an IP, we have no way of knowing if the person behind the computer today is the same person as the one who replaced the entire George W. Bush article with the word "poop" last Thursday. There are some IPs that show good edits followed by a day of vandalism, followed by more good edits, etc. That's why, before reporting at ], users should ensure that the IP has been warned ''for this bout of vandalism'', unless it's clearly the same person. (Sometimes you can tell becuase they target the same articles with the same kind of vandalism.) As Yandman points out, a good way of making it easy to review past messages is to put "Test2 warning", "Bv warning", "Test4 warning" in the edit summary. But it does seem unnecessary to insist that a particular IP keep a previous vandalism warning from last month on display. | |||
| :With regard to logged-on users, if it's a vandalism-only account, it will usually be blocked indefinitely, pretty quickly. It can be reported at ] as a vandalism-only account. That's less timeconsuming for the reporter than edit warring on the vandal's talk page. Such accounts generally don't last long. It's unusual for a regular editor to vandalize. Sometimes they vandalize user pages of users they're in dispute with. Again, there's no need to force them to keep warnings on their pages. Administrators should '''''never''''' block based solely on the existence of vandalism warnings, since some trolls send vandalism warnings to good-faith editors and admins who remove spam links. | |||
| :Of course, ''altering'' a warning rather than simply removing it is another matter. But do we really need a template for it? How long does it take to type one line telling someone s/he's not allowed to alter warnings? And is it really worth blocking for? Blocks are to prevent harm to the encyclopaedia? Does it really do terrible harm to the encyclopaedia to have "Please do not vandalize" changed to "Please do vandalize" on someone's talk page, which will never be read by people coming to Misplaced Pages to look something up? If a blocked user is doing this, just revert, and if necessary, protect the page. If the user doing this has not been blocked, then isn't it better to have him messing around with his talk page than messing around with Pope Benedict XVI? | |||
| :Whoever deleted that template deserves a barnstar. ] ] 12:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have to agree, blocking for one second seems like a very silly idea. On the other hand, I've always listed the template name in the edit summary when giving a warning template, and I encourage everyone to do the same. Warnings can be changed but the edit summaries are immutable. And naturally, I agree with Ann's points about the basis for blocking. Give us admins some credit, we're clever enough to work out who needs blocking and who doesn't. --] (]) 13:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == A statement on the state of your Wiki == | |||
| <small>(I am saying this because I honestly feel that Misplaced Pages needs to wake up and improve, this is not meant to be a blanket finger-pointing but rather pointing out problems that ''need'' to be fixed.)</small> Hello, for those of you who don't know me I was an administrator here until recently. I have long observed and cringed at the way many good faith contributors were treated by some admins, driving them to burst out in anger, which in turn leads to their indefinite blocks. There is no environment here to cope with people's mistakes, the only thing people do is chase away some of the better contributors, even if they are brand new. And I am thinking more of the actual article contributors rather than skilless janitorial work (that I sadly admit make up most of my contributions). I have seen good faith contributors be blocked indefinitely just because they did not quite understand how things are done and lost their temper in response to pushy admins, while regular contributors are often allowed to go around treating people harshly and calling good faith editors trolls with no consequences. I have seen admins swear at new users in big capital letters during content disputes, tell me, who would want to stick around after being yelled at? | |||
| I have seen many people argue against ] - saying that it will not succeed or is structured wrongly. You might be right on that, though I have already long started contributing there instead of here because I can do so in a calm atmosphere. I tell you right now that even without any major drive for contributions it has attracted several hundreds of contributors, over 100 of them holding PhDs, and several hundred articles have been improved from the state they were at Misplaced Pages (a lot of these changes are quite major too, in some cases re-written from scratch). So look at this, and think how has this Citizendium pilot, which is only in its early days and not even open to public, has managed to get to this stage and is much more active than Misplaced Pages was when it first started? Why do these people (many of whom are busy Professors and the like) even feel the need to give their real names, give the real life credentials and link to a CV when they could have just come here and contribute with a click of an "edit" button on the much more well known Misplaced Pages? Admit it, Misplaced Pages has huge problems, and they need fixing. | |||
| Now no doubt some people responding to this will jump at me and refer to the ridiculous Arbitration case against me, where one of the active arbitrators is the blocking admin, and another kindly proposes to ban me for a year. (I have no intention of obeying any such bans, although if I will want to contribute something to Misplaced Pages I ''will'' come back and I ''will'' improve Misplaced Pages even if it is against the desire of the ArbCom). This is '''''not''''' what I am referring to, I am referring to the general state of Misplaced Pages, and the spirit of the ArbCom is only barely related to that. The Community of regular contributors is at fault, even more specifically I think it is the contributors who do a lot of maintenence work rather than article writing. | |||
| As for me, I have long given up my +sysop and do not intend to return to Misplaced Pages any time soon (I am only here because of the Arb case, but due to the fresh air of toxicity introduced by Fred Bauder, I think it is time for me to drop even that). I ''do'' hope Misplaced Pages can improve, though I am not optimistic.--]<sup>]</sup> 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages has some issues, but doesn't every Internet or real life community have its problems? We're not a utopian society, and neither is any of the other societies that exist (including ]). Ideally we want to make changes and fix problems, but we must look at reality. Reality was meant to be in sharp contrast to ideality, and we must accept our current predicaments and expect corrections of problems are not bound to happen. ''']]''' 02:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't imagine too many people willing to give their real names at Citizendium. You're hanging yourself with that one. Your expert editors are limited to people that don't give a damn about their privacy. In that case, I wouldn't trust the expertise there any more than here. —] (]) 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know very well about that as well, which is why I was cynical about it myself. I won't try to argue that this is irrelavent, because I am myself not completely convinced on the naming issue, but what I admire about the project is that it acknoledges that there is a problem and tries to fix it. I don't think Citizendium is any harm to Misplaced Pages either, even if Citizendium has some initial success and then flops (though I hope it doesn't), there is no doubt that there will be at least something produced out of the experience that will be useful to Misplaced Pages (even if it is just the mainspace contributions that can be transferred here, but I am thinking more of the community structure). But what I am saying that the concerns raised by Larry Sanger and a bunch of other people are legitimate concerns that Misplaced Pages should try to address rather than ignore.--]<sup>]</sup> 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: As a rule, I tend to disapprove of places that require loyalty oaths, uses weasel terms like "compendium of knowledge", and a focus on bullshit terms like "family friendly". Not to mention the idea that things like notability or NPOV is based on "the preponderance of opinion in the English-speaking world". Spare me. The concerns raised by Larry Sanger are there to attempt to criticize Misplaced Pages and benefit from the publicity, while not acknowledging their own ideals are likely to piss people off in huge groups. Insulting the contributors who do the maintenance work here only reinforces for me the idea that the ArbCom came to the right decision concerning you. Enjoy Sangerpedia. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::A bit confused by your statement. I think if you look through my contribs you will find that ''most'' of them are maintenance work and probably only several hundred are actual non-maintenance article contributions. I would never insult anyone doing maintenance work as that would make me a hypocrite wouldn't it? I am just saying actual article contributions are more valuable. And it is quite skilless, I mean to write a wonderful article such, as say ], and pressing a block button on vandals doesn't really compare in skill levels does it? That does not mean in any way that people should not do maintenance work, or that they are idiots or that they are wasting their time. But I ''do'' regret not spending as much time on articles as much as I did on janitorial work. I see no offense in what I said.--]<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have to say it's odd that you take such offense at and yet you return to another public forum here attempting to stir up the beehive again - i.e. ]. Why does everyone insist on expounding to the uneducated masses on why they left Misplaced Pages and why we're all doomed? It's getting very cliché and boring. Why not just leave quietly? —] (]) 03:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Even if he's got a few possibly-valid points, he comes off as pretty whiny and petulant. ] 03:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you don't like what I'm saying, fine, feel free to ignore it. If it's getting cliché then maybe there is a problem don't you think ;-) Wknight94's attempted ] ] arguments in putting words in my mouth don't even warrant a response.--]<sup>]</sup> 04:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I've been following your leaving dance for a while - are you every actually leaving? I think you have some valid points but I'd agree with others, when you make such a big deal about leaving in the first place but then pop back every couple of days... --] 10:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Does Citizendium have a lenient sockpuppet policy? Do PhDs get more than someone with a masters? What if that person holds a non-doctoral terminal degree, like an MFA? Is the maintenance of properly-spelled words a requirement? Questioning minds...] ] 19:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Right to Vanish and deletion of talk page == | |||
| Can folks please look at ] and ? It looks to me like there's no reason not to delete the page, and yet... several admins have decided not to. I am confused; what's the reason for not deleting this, especially in light of the points made on ...? -- ] 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : User pages are no problem, and they're done routinely, but user talk pages are a different issue. Since you're mostly deleting other users' contributions, not the departing user's, then the CSD don't really apply. A courtesy blanking would be uncontroversial, IMO... ]]<sup>(])</sup> 07:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(Ed. conf.) Only rare exceptions for user talk pages, since they contain information about the user's past activities. I think blanking the user talk page for leaving members is the best thing to do. No real reason to delete it unless there's material which needs oversight. – ]] 07:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please see: | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* ] | |||
| ::* | |||
| ::...all of which indicates that deleting a user's talk page can be done when a user wishes to vanish. --] 07:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::From ]: "As a matter of practice User talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons; however, exceptions to this can be and are made '''''occasionally''''' (see also m:Right to vanish)." Emphasis mine. It has very little support within the community except for OFFICE matters. – ]] 07:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The guideline, as well as ] (in addition to Jimbo's comment when this recently came up!) all seem to indicate that it is perfectly valid. I understand it isn't done often. So if I have to ask for just such an "exception", then consider this my request. The user in question left Misplaced Pages after a very stressful time dealing with bitter AfDs. He specifically requested that his user page and talk page be deleted. Right-to-vanish guarantees a user such rights. We should honour the user's request. --] 07:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And he can request that. And he can easily have his user page deleted. But user talk pages are very specifically NOT deleted under most circumstances, as Chacor said, generally for OFFICE matters. The fact that several admins have chosen NOT to delete the talk page further reinforces this: it's just not done. You can blank it and move on. If you want to vanish, leave: if you're not planning on coming back you shouldn't care what your user talk page says. If he really cared, he could request a bureaucrat change his user name. But in essence you've already made the request and it's been denied by several admins. Since when do we go ] here? ] ] ] ] ] 07:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Interestingly, it looks like S charette broke 3RR on the usertalk page in question. – ]] 07:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm certainly not "shopping". I am curious to know why the page had been deleted when the user in question left Misplaced Pages, and now more than a month later the page suddenly re-appeared. People blanked the page and the request for deletion. I reverted it to get back the explanation and the user's request to delete. You're not going to all of a sudden claim that I'm in violation of 3R while we blatently ignore the the right-to-vanish rule that specifically allows talk pages to be deleted, are we? ] specifically states: | |||
| :::::::: '''However, if you decide to leave Wikimedia projects, there are a few steps that you can take to weaken that connection. Delete your user, user talk and subpages''' | |||
| ::::::: --] 07:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I feel this is unresolved. We either need to modify the right-to-vanish page and the guideline to explain that right-to-vanish is not supported by the community, or someone who can delete pages (IANAA) needs to delete the page in question. We cannot claim that we have something, yet not provide when we're asked. --] 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Right to vanish is a page on meta, local wikis frequently have their own policies on things. --] 19:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Why does right-to-vanish link back to a page on the English-language Misplaced Pages explaining what to do? --] 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: No idea, but meta != en, I would guess it originated on en and was moved there as a more general concept, en wiki policy moves on but meta reflects the original concept. --] 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There's a lot of inconsistency in all of this. Talk pages of vandals are deleted all the time. The question I ask myself before deleting someone's talk page is: will deleting this page hide evidence of ]. If not, I usually grant their request and indefinitely block them as well so that an admin has a chance to undelete their talk page should they return as I've previously discussed at ]. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 11:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The only reason stated for '''not''' deleting user talk pages as specified by 'right to vanish' is the hypothetical need to access past information about the person written there by them and others. As that information would be readily available to be viewed or restored from the history of the deleted page I don't see much validity to that argument. The reasons for deletion are clearly spelled out on the 'right to vanish' page itself... most notably the fact that it is detrimental to Misplaced Pages to needlessly antagonize people by insisting on maintaining a record of them they do not want. Why do we always go to such lengths to humiliate and infuriate people for no appreciable gain? --] 14:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I used to argue that user pages could be deleted but talk pages should not, but I am coming around to the idea of deleting both. Assuming a person wants to make a clean break, there is very little in the talk page that would be of current use, and if the editor comes back under a new name and begins acting up, the talk page can always be undeleted. ] 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think that as long as the user '''truly''' vanishes, the talk page should be deleted on request. However, if the user returns, then the page should be undeleted. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes that was one of the primary issues, there were several people regularly leaving, having there talk page deleted and then reappearing shortly after. --] 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Certainly I recently came accross someone who after being caught in some misconduct had their acounts "vanished" - It turned out that the person in question was already at least on their sixth account trying to hide checkuser and sockpuppetchecks. A blanked talkpage is as good as vanished, as searchengines don't pick them up. But having the history available when a similar pattern of conduct appears is worth keeping it. P.S. The case under discussion here had moved the talkpage elsewhere anyway ] 20:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This should be handled on a case-by-case basis, but in general I don't see what is the objection to deleting the userpage of a user who is truly disappearing. We should be particularly lenient in allowing deletion of talkpages belonging to users who were editing under their real names or easily identifiable usernames, made mistakes, and don't want the mistakes following them around on every Google search for the rest of their lives. It is unfortunately when an editor becomes so alienated from the project that he or she not only no longer wants to contribute, but feels a need to sever the connection that formerly existed. However, when that occurs, it is submitted that the (former) user's feelings should generally be respected unless there is some overpowering reason not to. As noted, admins can still review deleted pages and that should be good enough to access information that might be needed for any legitimate Misplaced Pages-related purpose. ] 20:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Note that in this case, the username is the person's initials followed by his last name. --] 22:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can I put back on his page the {{tl|dbuser}} tag? --] 09:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Have discussion stalled, or are there no objections anymore? --] 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Personal Information in ]== | |||
| Earlier today, ] attempted to remove personal information posted by ] and ] from ]. However, ]'s page history deletions did not actually remove the personal information, and falsified the edit history to make it appear as though I was posting the information, when in fact I was removing it. I request that this information be properly removed from the page history of the article. Thank you. ] 15:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] 17:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism + Whole list of nonsense pages== | |||
| See . {{user|Dupek73}} replaced the page ] with a redirect to ], which is a redirect to ], which is a redirect to ], which is a redirect to ], which is a redirect to ], which is a redirect to ]. He also created ]. That's one account of vandalism and creating 5 totally useless nonsense redirect pages. which was his first is also not very promising. Neither is . | |||
| Thus, I am requesting a ''long'' ban, since this user has very strongly indicated that the only reason why is here is to vandalize. Also, his userpage says that he does not understand English. --] | <small>'']''</small> 16:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Deleted all the redirects, blocking him for disruption for 48 hours. Since he has only two warnings, I am willing to give him a new opportunity, but anyone else can change that to indef if necessary. I will keep an eye on his future contributions. -- ] 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If this is a vandalism-only account, then why waste your time creating a lengthy entry on it here? Just report it to ] as a vandal account and let them give it an indef block.--] ] 20:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed. Indef block given as vandalism-only account. ]]]<small>]</small> 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you're interested, 'skurwysyn' is Polish for 'son of a bitch'. One of the few Polish words I know! ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 11:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Leaving mesages on protected talk pages? == | |||
| How do I leave a message on a protected talk page? The page in question is ]. I thought protecting a blocked user's talk page was only done in extreme circumstances? ] 17:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That was my understanding as well. I've suggested to the blocking admin that he might want to bring this situation to the noticeboard for comments. ] 17:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I see no clear justification for the talk page protection, and no explanation ''on the talk page'' of why this is done. Is it common practice to pick on blocked users these days? ] ] 17:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note that there is some ] in deleted/reverted edits on that page that makes the story a ''little'' easier to follow. ] 17:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There ''is'' an explanation from Philwelch there: ''"If you're blocked for disruptive editing of a talk page, you don't get to use your own talk page as a surrogate."'' I do think that Philwelch should have sought a second opinion on all this though, as he was clearly involved in a dispute with John Reid at the time. Ironically, on the talk page of ], so if other admins do get involved, someone will inevitable use this as a ] example... ] 18:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Note that the user, as a matter of principle, requests that other admins ''not'' unblock, but comment on the block and/or consult with the blocking admin. It's an odd situation, overall. ] 18:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have had unpleasant memories of ]. Some months ago he went on some power trip and blocked some editors he had a content dispute with. Other administrators warned him not to abuse his blocking tool, but he went on and blocked some more including me. ] 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Do you have any diffs or links to show that? ] 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: and here's the archived ANI discussion involving Philwelch: . ] 18:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Thanks for those. Together with where he blocks himself several times, this is not the sort of behaviour I'd expect to see in an admin. Do I really want to think, if I happen to run into Philwelch on a random talk page at some point in the future, that he is someone who could block me for no apparent reason? ] 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Responding to Newyorkbrad: that is indeed a general principle that John holds. One that I agree with. No-one should feel, especially for short blocks, that it is something worth wheel-warring over if the blocked user himself doesn't feel that way. Much better to suggest the blocking admin reconsiders and undoes the block himself. So if anyone does feel the block is unwarranted, please do say so. And ditto for the protection of the talk page, though that is probably a separate issue. ] 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In general though, shouldn't there be a way to disable the ability of a blocked user to edit their talk page, rather than completely protect the talk page? That leaves non-admins unable to leave messages, when the aim seems to be rather to prevent the blocked user from using the talk page to carry out personal attacks on the blocking admin (which wasn't the case here, in my opinion). ie. have two blocking options: (1) Ordinary block (everything except user's talk page); (2) Full block (including user's talk page). Protecting a user's talk page must be covered in the guidelines somewhere, surely. Anyone have a link? ] 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've unprotected the talk page, absent a solid reason for it to be protected. ] ] 19:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I was about to unprotect the talk page myself and leave it as such so long as John doesn't continue acting abusively. John's been acting very aggressive, trying to seize control of the discussion and make everyone talk about things on *his* terms. While this certainly constitutes being a jerk, I felt further discussion was the best avenue until he began repeatedly using deceptive edit summaries. This is a tactic I've run into before (]), and my understanding is that deceptive edit summaries are considered completely inappropriate by the community. While I do think that not blocking people one is in a dispute with is a good rule, it's a difficult one to apply with individuals who simply create disputes with everyone around them. ] 05:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the explanation, Phil. I've posted a note on your talk page asking for diffs showing these deceptive edit summaries. I'd be grateful if you could provide them. I had a bit of trouble getting to your talk page, as when I clicked on the link to your user page (above), the link didn't seem to work. Do you know what's happening there? ] 06:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh. The link went from blue to red. Someone's deleted it. That'll explain it! :-) ] 06:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It has become increasingly common practice for some admins to protect the talk pages of blocked users (or even in one recent case a 'warned' user)... especially when the admin themself placed the block or was otherwise involved in the dispute. This, along with things like forcing users to keep warnings displayed on their talk pages and blocks for 'disruption' that consists primarily of edit warring with the admin, are a depressing trend that needs to be stopped. More and more admin abilities are used to enforce the views of individual admins... rather than to uphold consensus as intended. John Reid ''was'' being disruptive, but Phil wasn't a model of civility either and nobody's benefit is served by this. --] 14:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It could be argued that Phil's actions were disruptive as well. What I'm more concerned about is that, as Dionysus pointed out above, this isn't the first time Phil has acted like this. How many warnings do admins get before something is done, or do admins have more freedom to push the boundaries than non-admins? I know blocks are not punitive, but they ''are'' a permanent record on a user's block log, as opposed to digging up diffs several months later. Is there any point in a 1-second block to record something in the block log, or does that just inflame the situation? Where should the balance lie? ] 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: An RfC can be raised. Nobody is immune from accountability. Here I agree that Phil's actions were immoderate, it would have been better to leave a message here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == User: 24.47.221.227 == | |||
| This individual from IP address 24.47.221.227 is making repeated vandalism on the page ]. I have not investigated other vandalism possibly made from this IP, but I feel action should be taken due to the amount of vandalism made by IP 24.47.221.227 on one entry. -] 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :For future reference, report vandals to ]. Thanks. ''']]''' 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, I blocked the user for 24 hours. ''']]''' 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == IP 75.110.225.220 == | |||
| An individual from IP 75.110.225.220 is vandalising many different pages, usually adding in information about an individual named Martin Perez, and performing other vandalism. Thank you. -] 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :For future reference, report vandals to ]. Thanks. ''']]''' 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I blocked the user for 48 hours. Thanks. ''']]''' 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal information == | |||
| Think these two edits should be removed from the page history if possible? ] 00:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Removed them. Anyone with oversight might want to remove them permanently? --<font color="002bb8">]</font> (<font color="002bb8">]</font>) 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Page history mess created by multiple cut-and-paste moves == | |||
| Please could somebody take a look at the page histories for {{article|Britney Spears' fifth studio album}} {{article|Original Dolls (album)}} and {{article|Original Doll}}, and merge them? I was going to do it myself, but my head started spinning when I tried to figure out which page to delete first. Thanks. ] 00:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I suggest combining Original Dolls (album) and Original Doll, and then combining those two articles with the first one. ] 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Ecopave Australia nonsense == | |||
| There is an editor on several IP addresses blanking {{lw|Articles for deletion/Ecopave Australia}}, {{lw|Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive140}}, and {{lw|Reference desk archive/Miscellaneous/2006 October 16}} of all mention of Ecopave Australia, obviously to whitewash their history of their edits. The relevant discussions are obviously ], ], and the AFD discussion. I have requested offwiki that Khoikhoi sprotect the pages, but the IPs used should probably be checked for open proxies as these are their '''only edits'''. | |||
| *{{IPvandal|58.166.253.74}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|138.217.71.138}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|144.131.164.95}} | |||
| *{{IPvandal|138.217.85.143}} | |||
| —] (]) 03:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :All protected, all blocked. I don't think they're proxies, however. All the IPs are located in the same city (Melbourne). <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 03:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's probably ], who was blocked a couple of days ago for the above concerns. There's some other links on the user talk page. ] <small>]</small> 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Indeed. And Fact Finder can, to be blunt, fuck off, for the reasons I stated on his Talk page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ah, the unintended consequences of spamming Misplaced Pages. Ironically, the sooner it's caught, the better for a spammer's reputation, since Misplaced Pages's high Google ranking means that spam notices, AFD discussions, and talk page warnings bubble up to the top of Google hits. --] | ] 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Are you saying that the Ecopave spammer's actions will have elevated our debates about the Ecopave spamming to the top of the Google results fior Ecopave, GEO320 and mastic roller hybrid? How terrible. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Protection can fall off== | |||
| This is a general note to admins involved in deleting and restoring protected or semi-protected pages. When you delete and restore revisions of a protected page, you can end up removing the protection completely without actively unprotecting it, and without even knowing about it. If you do such activity, please check the protection status afterwards - don't rely on the logs. Here's one example of many: . -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yup, I'd second that. Make sure you reprotect after you delete/restore. ] 17:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Isn't it simply the case that deleting a page cancels any and all protection upon it? (]) 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it need to be reapplied if the protection is still needed. --] 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==List of vaporware== | |||
| An anonymous dynamic IP keeps removing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. from ]. Both me and another person has reverted his rmeoval, last time two references was added but the person . I've already reverted the edit twice now, how should this be dealt with? ] 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems to me as if the game in question is ''no longer'' vaporware. The gives a release date "officially fixed as Q1 2007". The IGN review is dated 11 April 06, and the Cnet site is undated; the dev website news release is dated June '06. From the information provided, the IP seems to be correct in that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is no longer vaporware; rather, it is actually going to be released. Since the release date (Q1 07) is perfectly sensible, and there is no other information to the contrary that the game ''won't'' be released, it no longer appears to fall under the category of vaporware. That is, unless there are press releases/other sources that say anything to the contrary. ] <sup><span>]</span></sup> <sub><span style="position: relative; left: -9px; margin-right: -45px;">]</span></sub> 21:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As explained to the IP, this game has had release dates *numerous* times before, people has been invited to play it before. But then the release date closes and suddenly it's pushed to next year. Essencially, what you're describing here has happent several times in the past already. It is _because of this_ that people and notable sources which was listed claim it's vaporware. Based on this exact same thing happening several times already, it's highly probable that the game won't be released in 2007 Q1. In my opinion, based in this history, the game should be listed as vaporware like Duke Nukem Forever untill it's actually released. ] 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::But, for Misplaced Pages purposes, can anyone point to a ] for any of this information? That means not comparing one source with another and making a judgement (that's ]). If anyone can ] that says this is vaporware, then it's vaporware for Misplaced Pages purposes. ]<b><font color="red">]</font></b> 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Look at the . Sources was listed. ] 22:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The sources listed there were published before the developer announced the newest release date. From what I can see, the most recent information says that it is going to be published, same as any other game. If anything else, the fact that they have playable versions of it going through testing indicates that significant work was put into the product; if there's already a working build out, cutting the entire project at such a late point in development seems especially silly. The dev says it's going gold in Q1 2007; unless there is a newer source than it (July) that contradicts, it appears to be a legitimate game, and not vaporware. ] <sup><span>]</span></sup> <sub><span style="position: relative; left: -9px; margin-right: -45px;">]</span></sub> 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As I said, this is just a repeat of history. Thing is, nothing ever happens despite of marketing and release dates. Say we keep it off for now, are we going to have the same discussion when the release date is pushed back again, and they publish a new release date again or can we keep it on then? Yes, my question assumes it will be pushed back but that is with a very good reason. ] 01:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps you could split the difference: have a section of the article for "Past nominees" (or whatever). You could list this game there, with information about previously announced releases that didn't come to pass. The reader can then decide if he/she thinks the 2007 release will happen or not. ] | ] 13:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Isn't the whole page a violation of ]? Even if it had hard and fast and clear criteria for inclusion (not just perpetually slipping release dates, but evidence that the software is heavily promoted) it would still be speculation and 'extrapolation'. If the page deserves to exist, it should look at history, not into the future. Regards, ] 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What about renaming to something like "List of software considered vaporware"? ] 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That would make it clearer that there's OR involved, but it wouldn't fix the problem. Regards, ] 05:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In any case, I am not going to go any further with this case. I'll leave it with this notice and the community can figure out what to do with the issue if anything. ] 09:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Skulltag AfD == | |||
| Would a few admins take a look at ]? The article about a source port of Doom that (from my research) is non-notable, but it seems Skulltag's community and a number of it's members are protesting. There have been no votes in the deletion discussion despite it running for almost five days, so I'd like to ask if it at least one admin could keep their eye on it. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 00:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yikes, the AFD has now been overrun by meatpuppets vying to keep the article intact. ] 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uh, now that there's been several votes, can someone (who hasn't yet participated in the discussion) close this AfD before it really gets out of control? ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 07:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gone. A lovely little thread they set up on their forums about Misplaced Pages and its' users, as well. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 08:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What the devil is going on ? Goading them probably isn't the best idea ever. -- ] <small>(])</small> 08:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have got to be kidding me. As there isn't already enough trouble already...really don't need this headache. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 08:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hmmmm...well, it wasn't me, and by the sounds of things it wasn't either of you two, I seriously doubt it was Hamedog (the closer). There's a couple of other editors, although they seem well-respected enough. The only other "Delete" !voter is an IP, so I can't verify whether he/she would do such a thing by determinance of their reputation. Nonetheless, whoever did it should quit, and pronto - this is bad enough, without inciting further hatred. Please, whoever it was (if you are reading this), stop. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 09:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Reminder: ] That some 'voters' are biased, new, or socks of unbanned users does not matter, so long as the closing admin does their job properly. Regards, ] 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The funny thing about the IP address is that IP addresses can't create articles anymore, so I was wondering if that 4.*.*.* was going to go through with his promise of recreating the article every single time it was deleted. Anyway, I voted delete, but I didn't registern an account to goad them, though I was tempted to. ] 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This article was deleted out of process, and has been restored. The final count was 4 keep, 5 delete, which is not nearly a consensus to delete. ] 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well if you wish to challenge the closer's decision you should take it to ] instead of wheel-warring to restore the page. <tt>].]</tt> 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wasn't wheel-warring, I was exercising ] in response to administrative actions that bypassed policy. I fully intended to take the more bureaucratic approach if another administrator intervened, as you have. ] 04:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Notice how the four keep votes came from users from the Skulltag who registered only to vote keep. I thought that sysops had the power to discard such meatpuppet votes? ] 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] disambig page overwritten with article == | |||
| The disambiguation page at ] was overwritten with a by ] and a few unregistered users. The band may be worthy of an article (I'm not sure) so I'm not sure how to resolve this without munging up the edit history. — ] (]) 01:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The text came from http://www.kinemagigz.com/'t'.htm#Trax and had only been given trivial modifications. ] 01:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy deletion of ] as per CSD G6 == | |||
| Would someone have time to look at this article ? The main reason I am asking here instead of just leaving it in the backlog of ] is because a "copy-paste-blank-create-redirect" move was attempted, and the whole thing is getting a bit messy (to me at least, although I have removed all the redirects and reverted the blankings). The rationale for the non-controversial move is at ]. Either a move by an admin or a deletion (I can do the move afterwards) would be fine, if someone can do it. Many thanks, ] 15:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Many thanks to ] for doing the move ! ] 15:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Stuff I cannot be bothered to deal with == | |||
| I'm having some revert problems with a user, {{user|TheEvilBlueberryCouncil}}. It's over some incredibly trivial stuff, and to be honest, I can't be bothered to deal with and engage with the user in question. | |||
| Said user seems to think YTMND is relevant to an encyclopedia, so much so that he keeps on adding YTMNDs every time I remove them. We have such genius editors such as this who believe edits like and aren't absolutely worthless. I can't be bothered to deal with this user, I'm not wasting my time on endless reverts of YTMND links over a handful of articles, someone talk some sense into him. - ]]] 16:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Have reverted a few of the user's contributions (the other reversions to user's own revisions appear to have already been reverted by someone else) and left a warning message. Should this user persist, I will take further action. Let me know if you need any further assistance. --] | ] 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == How to get an archived article deleted== | |||
| How can I get deleted the following articles, I have had discussions with people concerned in regards to these three article and their contents, and apparently because these articles have been edited to the extent that they are no longer factual but distorted and out of context they should be therefore deleted. Also because these three pages serves no real purpose in Misplaced Pages other than paint the ECOPAVE company and its trademark protected words ] in bad light ],] 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive140#Walled_garden_.2F_spammers | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Miscellaneous/2006_October_16#Ecopave | |||
| *http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2006_October_22#Advise_to_new_users_regarding_Trademark_and_Libel_laws | |||
| ] 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Those pages are ] of discussion pages, and should not be deleted. They are preserved as records of prior discussion. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are several threads relevant to this near the bottom of the ]. --] 16:30, 27 November 2006 (]]]) | |||
| :::I've blocked this account indefinitely. If he wants to appeal his block there are ways of doing so, but this is mere block evasion. ] 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yet more bollocks from this bunch of spammers. I have also had a threatening email, stating that unless we excise all mention of Ecopave's spamming then the "truth" about our appalling abuse of Ecopave (read: reversion of their spamming campaign and good-faith attempts to get their employees to contribute productively) will be published on the Ecopave Australia website. Only it was written EC0PAVE AUSTRAL1A, an obscurantism for ECOPAVE AUSTRALIA, despite the fact that (as a private email) it stands no chance of being placed on the web where it can damage Ecopave's Google results. I'd say that Fact Finder (and the associated Ecopave spam accounts) shows evidence of ridiculous levels of obsession and we need to be on the lookout for more of this nonsense. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == XFF headers and ] == | |||
| I might be crazy, but I think AOL finally came through with the XFF headers, anyone else care to test this out? Make sure this isn't a fluke--] 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes they are, it was in the wiki account email today infact. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 19:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Perhaps someone quietly took notice of the fact that AOL was blocked. ]<sup>]]</sup> 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Admitted stalking == | |||
| Following opening an RfC against me, ] has begun sifting through every edit I make on a daily basis and leaving little notes on my talk page about what I need to stop doing. He's already and rebuffed several polite requests to stop, so I'd really like it if someone else would take action here. --] 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==fiveminute.net: huge ] violator?== | |||
| This Web site has 100 links within Misplaced Pages as I type this; most link to five-minute parodies of television series episodes. Ignoring the fact that this site gets some 16,000 Google hits, is there anything anyone can see that indicates any of these links should survive here? <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 22:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've just checked out a couple - I find nothing notable about the site, it's links or it's shitty parodies. Flush on sight I say, they add nothing at all to encylopedia articles. --] 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Same thing I saw, thanks. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 22:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: is there a quick way to delete them all in one go? or am I racing you to be the first one to delete 50 of the links (there are a lot in star trek enterprise episodes). --] 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wish... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The number actually was over 190 (I forgot to click on the larger numbers); I'm working from the bottom, if anyone has time to jump in. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Bloody hell I there was a lot of them - thanks also to for help me and RK killing many of those off. --] 23:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Definitely a tyvm is in order. What bothers me is that those involved knew that "]" and decided to not be proactive... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> | |||
| *This sounds like a job for the ]. (]) 10:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Okay, here's the scoop: | |||
| ] came to me requesting help regarding edits made by ]. He made allegations that the user was reverting other people's edits for no good reason, and that he was violating ] by using a sockpuppet (]). This was proven by ] at ] and despite this verification, Spyke stated that it was his brother who was on the other account. I find this hard to believe as they appeared to be defending the same edits in the article ]. A CheckUser clerk, Daniel.Bryant, also pointed this out stating that he couldn't believe that these two accounts were being used by different people. Judging from the article history of ], it does appear that TJ Spyke has been reverting many user's edits to the page without discussing or contacting the users he reverted. Anyway, as per the RFCU, Essjay requested the admin body to overview the decision and do whatever they please. I'm personally involved in this matter, so I am refraining from doing anything in this matter. I'd also like to point out that TJ Spyke has violated ] on multiple occasions, and I speculated he was using the sockpuppet to avoid a block. ''']]''' 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :TJ tends to control articles, in my opinion. New Year's Revolution is just the most recent one. I remember at ], he would remove the official name of a match. After many reverts and a discussion at the talk page, it was finally left alone by TJ. How exactly can others help on wrestling articles, if edits just get reverted with little to no explanation? Misplaced Pages articles are for everyone to edit, not for one user to control an article and revert anything he sees fit with no good reasons. ] 23:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've blocked TJ Spyke for 48 hours for continuing to edit war on that WWE page. Edgecution is more likely a meatpuppet if anything as opposed to a sockpuppet. Not sure what people want to do about him. -- ] 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The argument might be moot - ] and ] are going to be deleted as unsourced here within the next few days - I already deleted ]. --]''']'''] 00:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would like to point out TJ Spyke CONTINUES to revert the poster. I noticed when he was blocked, there wasn't trouble with the article (that I noticed at least). Then he comes back and causes revert issues once again. The poster doesn't hurt the article, but for whatever reason TJ thinks it does. ] 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been deleted for having no source. Hopefully this will be the end of the dispute. -- ] 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh joy, the image is also under a different name which does have a source (]). Ok, page protected. No more reverting from anyone. -- ] 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Two technical questions == | |||
| 1. What is currently the first page at ]? and 2. How do I edit the text at ]? I think it's about time ] had a more accurate description. But I can't find a MediaWiki page that has that text. ] 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The first page is ], for some reason (yes, I just typed <nowiki>]</nowiki> there, because it is a page with the Empty Title; this is probably a software fluke). Regarding ancientpages, the text is here: ]. (]) 10:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Huh. Well, thanks, but I still don't get it, so I guess that indicates this is over my head technically and I shouldn't worry about it. ] 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==New {{tl|COI}} template== | |||
| I just created (okay, copied and modified another template to make) a "]" clean-up template. Feedback is not only desired, but begged for. --] | ] 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a good idea. However, when will it exactly be used? I mean if it's used right when an article is about to be speedied, there seems to be no point for it. Nonetheless, I think it's a good idea, but maybe I'm overlooking something. ''']]''' 02:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it's for the cases where the subject is slightly too notable, or potentially too notable, to speedy. Sometimes we ] these or slap notability tags on them, but a tag referencing ] may be more precise. Sometimes the problematic article is not vanity per se, but the author did all the original research on the subject, and published it in a vanity press or a website somewhere. Anyone remember ] and ]? I like the tag; it may be the best way to approach this problem (which is a ''huge'' problem, for those of us who do newpage or recent changes patrol). ] ] 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think this is too specific of a tag. If it's a speedy candidate, the creator of the page is not supposed to remove the tag. Anybody can remove a PROD tag. Concerns about original research, references, etc. should be tagged with existing templates and a possible conflict of interest (if there is one) to be described as so. I really don't see the need for a special template... ] 05:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's intended as a more specific version of {{tl|advert}} and/or the {{tl|vanity}} tag but applied to non-bios, as in "This subject might be worth an article but maybe it shouldn't be you writing it." ] created by {{User|A Greater Gift}} -- note the name of the parent organization of the article subject -- was what prompted this. --] | ] 05:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Since NN vanity articles can already be handled under ], it would seem this template is only useful on notable subjects that happen to have a "COI". Accordingly, maybe you should remove all the talk of deletion and rephrase it more like "someone else should rewrite this, previous author, please make suggestions on the talk page". --] 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's less ]y than {{tl|advert}}, and that is good. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Incorrect implementation of the extension of an RfA == | |||
| Please see ]. This probably needs fixing rather urgently. I would have fixed it myself, but I would prefer that an admin review the situation if a bureaucrat is not around (message also left at ] and at the talk page of the bureaucrat who did the extension). ] 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Page move help == | |||
| I already posted at ] but there seems to be a 3-day backlog for uncontroversial moves and I'd like to resolve this before bed. Can someone please help move ] to ]? All thats there now is a redirect with no history, but I think MediaWiki is getting tripped up because of the previous move of ] to ]. --] 06:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like it's been done. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit-conflict) Done. I don't know what the issue there was either. I didn't go digging for double redirects, since I'm going to bed too, so you should probably check if there's any left over. ] 07:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I've attempted doing a few RM's recently - the tricky part is that a lot of the discussions don't show consensus after the 5 days. That leaves (a rather high rate of) relistings, or closing the discussion as having no consensus. Both are hardly ideal - any ideas on how to make this work better? Perhaps list on ] as well for the really controversial ones? ] (]) 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Massive Image Deletion == | |||
| An admin, ], today deleted several hundred fair use images, including many that were marked with the <nowiki>{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}</nowiki> tag. There is no indication that ] considered any of the reasons for the disputes on the images talk pages before proceeding with what looks to be a blanket torching of these images. Now, many of these images had, I think it's fair to say, fair use issues... but many were entirely appropriately sourced, tagged, with copyright and source information, etc. My question: Is this deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy? ] 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I was wondering how that giant backlog got cleared so fast. I commend him for deleting the non-disputed ones but I wouldn't have deleted the disputed ones without reviewing the reasoning, which I doubt he could have done in the amount of time those were all deleted. ] 07:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, taking a look at the delete log, it might have been possible to open them in tabs and then take a couple second glance over each one. In some cases it's obvious enough to do it, in others it's not. In terms of official policy, I hate to say it, but the backlog is massively massive, things seem to be tuned for speed more than detailed looks. If you have any tips on how to make it work better, it might help things out :) -- ] 08:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The criterion allows for a full week before deletion, giving ample time for anyone who wants to dispute that an image is replaceable to mount their argument. I only found one example where someone had disputed whether the image was replaceable, ], which really isn't reasoning at all. Did you find any other examples? --] (]) 08:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have (now dead) links to several images - and the associated talk pages wherein I'd made my fair use cases -- listed on my ]. ] 08:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The question now is did the admin use a deletion bot? I ask that since I saw this on the blocking log: "01:17, 28 November 2006 Dragons flight (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Betacommand (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Using an unauthorized deletion bot)." ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah, adminbots get shunned by the community, I guess it could be a peice of javascript though, one button to do the work of 3. Really, I have no idea - -] 08:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I had placed a <nowiki>{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}</nowiki> tag on ] and provided a rationale in the tag. I'm not sure the fair use claim was ironclad, but it probably at least warranted a few seconds of thought by an admin. --] | |||
| I have blocked {{admin|Betacommand}}, as Zscout370 noted before I got here. His demonstrates that he deleted >1500 images in less than 2 hours, which amounts to less than 5 seconds per image (actually its even less because of a couple gaps of ~10 minutes). Regardless of how he accomplished this, any process that acts with bot like speed requires a bot approval. Since I can find no evidence of any such approval (and would be very surprised to see it since I7 requires human attention to identify and resolve disputes), I have acted on the assumption that this behavior is unapproved and blocked Betacommand for a week for operating an unapproved admin bot. ] 08:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. I would also like to note that his bot appears to have made no notice of {{tl|Replaceable fair use disputed}} or any accommanying talk page discussion, so I expect there are more than a few people who have been upset to have their arguments ignored. A few of these have already commented at ]. ] 08:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :deletetion every 5 seconds is manualy posible. But for 2 hours?] 12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just a reminder ''blocking an admin does not restrict their admin abilities'' - kind of an interesting thing to note -- ] 08:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :certianly used to limit them somewhat.12:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Woah! Well I did ask for help with the backlog, carefull what you wish for I guess... The place is ready to blow over this issue already. Just flat out automated deletion of everyting tagged was probably not the wisest move. I think we just proved everyone who has been complaining that reasonable complaints are ignored right. I'm all for enforcing this, but let's try not to turn the ''entire'' comunity against it in the process shall we. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 10:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I had an image that I had contested the delete of image deleted by Betacommand without comment in this recent set. I have been involved in the discussions about the use of promotional tagged images at some length in the last two days. I resposted another image to the same page, and it was immediately marked by ] for deletion. The same user then has attacked dozens of images uploaded with a promotional tag in only a few minutes, using the argument that any image marked with a promotional tag should be deleted because it could hypothetically be subsititued with a free image as long as the person is living - in this case many of the images marked were provided by the artists to me directly, inclusing some because no free or even promotional image existed. ] then began marking other images such as CD covers I have posted with the so-called rationale they should be deleted because few pages linked to them, which would delete 99% of the album cover images on Misplaced Pages, as well as likely 98% of all images. This is an obvious personal attack, and yet another example of editors gone wild, which I am now expected to spend hours contesting every one of these CSD's or have someone destroy hours and hours of legitmate work and Misplaced Pages page layouts to match. I ask for admin assistance on this issue, please, this type of stuff is getting insane on here. A review of ], and now comments being posted on my page, indicate this user engages in this kind of behavior on a repeated basis. I have never asked for an Rfc before, but there is certainly a need for one here, in addition to a block. The timing of the original issue might also suggest a sockpuppet relationship between Betacommand and Abu badali. And as a Misplaced Pages user and professional journalist, is it just me, or is there a motto on Misplaced Pages that for every person engaging in this kind of attack behavior there are a dozen apologists? ] 11:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay admins and apologists - if there was any question about intent, harassment, legitimacy, use of a CSD bot, etc. regarding ] - in the middle of his dozens of CSD requets in a few minute span of my images was an image he deleted from the ] page. This was not an image I'd created, it was a free image from another user and marked as such, it was simply one I'd replaced with a promtionally tagged image at one point, which was then reverted, and which I'd subsequently left alone. Abu badali removed a completely free image from a page, the same type of image used to illustrate hundreds of cars on Misplaced Pages, using the rationale "23:04, November 27, 2006 Abu badali (Talk | contribs) m (rm purely illustrative use of unfree image per WP:FUC#8)". I am completely sick of this stuff, and of the people that apologize for the type of behavior exhibited by this and similar users. Is there anyone sane that has a bot thay can remove his CSD's? ] 11:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And now I get to offer a clarification/correction - it appears the image that was removed from ] was the one referenced below - not the free image at the top of the page, which I thought was the case as in checking the top image tag, it indicated it was no longer linked to any page, and I thought I was seeing a cached page version which still had the image after deletion. Everything else I stated stands, and that was hopefully the only image I've uploaded without a totally clear source. I'm so glad NOT to be dealing with this. ] 12:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::See my note on your talk page: if you can't manage to comply with the requirements of ] , your case is thinner than ]. HTH HAND —] | ] 12:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seen and replied - I see the image had already been removed before I even had time to clarify the tag - see if you like the clarification, as the image still exists in an orphaned state, and if so, restore it please. ] 12:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And I've deleted that image under CSD I6, since you didn't provide a detailed fair use rationale. Like it or not, we haven't accepted with permission images for a long time, unless a valid fair use claim is made, and at least since ] this year we haven't accepted images tagged only with a generic fair use template and no detailed fair use rationale. These requirements are not hard to meet, and were in place long before you uploaded that image. And even though it's deleted now, we have image undeletion so if you can provide a detailed fair use rationale (and proper sourcing information too, Yahoo Groups doesn't count), I can undelete the image and we can all be happy. --] (]) 12:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to hear what Betacommand has to say about this accusation, although I'll admit it looks pretty serious. He was only recently granted adminship, so if he is misusing it, perhaps those powers should be revoked. A bot with admin powers would be strictly regulated and unlikely to be approved and he would know that. He is also a member of ] so I think this probably has implications for that as well. His talk page has a ] as well. Apparently he blocked an ISP proxy calling it an open proxy. I don't know much about this case but thought I'd bring it to attention here. -- ] 13:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Interiot once clocked me doing image deletions at 7.3 seconds, but I'd already checked each one and opened a billion tabs. That's not sustainable, of course, because you have to go through and get another batch ready. This has to have been bot-assisted in some fashion, if he kept up that rate for two '''hours'''. ] ] 13:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well at 5 seconds per edit, that isn't so fast as to ''necessarily'' require bot approval. And if it was manual-assisted bot, then it doesn't strictly need bot approval either. The issue here was that a bot was possibly used with a) administrator access and b) that the actions performed were not correct. The latter action perhaps requires a hand slapping and a warning, but running a bot with administrator access performing an administrator function, even if assisted, is questionable at best. Nevertheless, we wouldn't even be having this discussion if nothing went wrong. Still, at minimum the block was justified. -- ] 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :well for one minute I managed to get down to one delete ever 2.4 seconds but there is no way to keep that up. Especialy if you are dealing with challanges.] 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let's think about this logically then. Clearly he wasn't dealing with challenges, as is well evidenced. So if one were to simply be misusing admin tools, you could easily maintain a fast deletion rate without the use of a bot. Perhaps that is the case here? We're making the assumption that a fast edit rate is not possible without the support of a bot, but that's assuming ''proper'' deletions, which clearly did not happen here. It would seem then that a bot may not have been used, but only a misuse of administrator tools. Still a serious problem of course. -- ] 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::no you can't mentain a deletion rate that high for any length of time (I just deleted 30 images in under a minute but only because I spent the previous few minutes doing setup) and physicaly it will start to hurnt after a while (blisters pain in joints whatever). For long term sustained rates you do less preloading which slows the deletion rate. If it posible to delete once every 5 seconds without prep that is right on the edge of what is posible (I'll run some tests shortly) which means there is no way you could keep it up.] 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *How about we simply ask him how he did that instead of speculating? He appears to be around now. (]) 14:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::But then we miss the chance to start up competative speed deleting which might keep our backlogs clear once and for all.] 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I admit that I assumed that since the Images in question were in the category, and that it was backloged I assumed that the disputes for wether or not the image should be deleted had been resolved. I modified my version of firefox, for a short time to allow for clearing this backlog. I set it up so that if I middle clicked a link it would open up the deletion page with the Image and the preset summary. I also had it set to autosave, and close the tab. That is how I mananaged to get the speed. Looking back of the Incident that was not a smart idea. The reason that I set that up was because of the massive backlog. But I see that i should have been more careful. Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete? ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 14:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC) <small> quoted from his talk page. (]) 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *Since BC states he was not using a bot and admits his mistake, I think we should unblock him so that he can help fixing it. Thoughts please? (]) 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm fine with removing the block so long as discussion happens here dealing with the issue. I'm not sure what is meant by the comment "Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete?" Does this mean to imply that it wasn't a big deal since only a few may have been incorrect or is this an honest question for some other purpose? -- ] 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think he meant "mis-delete", not "missed deleting". (]) 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::going by follow up comments probably not. I've pulled the block. I can't cheack for autoblocks though.] 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I was just wondering how many Images that I had made an error on. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''Out of the ~1500 images that I deleted how many did i miss delete?'' -- Well, if you didn't look at the disputes going on on any of the image talk pages, then, technically, 1500. I'm not sure why we're supposed to do your job of going back and looking at all 1500 images, and finding the ones that were inappropriately deleted, when this should have been done the first time. They '''all''' need to be looked at, and for more than an average of five seconds. Look, I don't mean this to be snippy, but it is very frustrating to play by the rules, learn about all the image tags, upload some images that do make articles better for Misplaced Pages users, work with admins to get the image tagging and licensing issues all settled... then have the whole thing blow up because a few Wikipedians decide to change the policy on promophotos. Very, very disheartening, and like I said, I don't mean to be a downer about this, but today, Misplaced Pages is NOT as good as it was before the promophoto jihad began. Also -- NONE of the images I uploaded, that you deleted, have been restored, even though I am one of the editors who left a message on your talk page. You can find of list of the images in question on ] or by using your bot. ] 17:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have restored the Images that were brought to my attention. ] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::A good many actually, it appears you didn't check for disputed tags, which actually say to keep the other tag as well. I reuploaded the only one on my watchlist no problem, but as not being an admin able to check the tags on the deleted files I can't really give you an exact number --]-] 17:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * I did a few of these a while ago, the ratios were actually pretty high for disputed tags, of those not all actually had any dispute, but even then a good amount did. I would be uncomfortable giving exact percentages though. If you feel like a dispute was deleted before being resolved, or even if one was resolved to keep and then deleted anyway, bring it up at ] and someone will fix it for you. 1500 might be too many for betacommand to do all alone. Does anyone think there needs to be an improvement in the dispute procedure? Currently most of the disputes are just 2 people arguing back and forth until an admin deletes, at which time no one is informed of the decision. This has to be balanced with the fact that any additional steps will only increase the already high backlog on this section. - ''']''' 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just to add to the fun, now, I've noticed at least one of the ] -- wherein the case for keeping the image was made -- has been deleted by another admin, because, you know, it's a talk page with no "article." Which is, of course, frustrating, but not entirely unexpected. Sigh... So can we be bring back these ~1500 images, and their associated talk pages? Or has this ship sailed into Wiki-seas from which there is no return? ] 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fast action by ] restored ] I referred to above, but I still fear that much has been lost. Metros suggested a temporary hold on <nowiki>{{db-talk}}</nowiki> activity, but we're well beyond my level of Wiki-comprehension. ] 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] says an exception to the deletion of orphaned talk pages is made for "talk pages of images on Commons". This won't be the case here, as these are fair-use images on Misplaced Pages (I think). But just in case this does apply, I thought I'd point it out, as these exceptions to the rules are easy to miss sometimes. ] 20:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: What about user talk pages/Rfc's? I have a fair use image that was being compared and dicussed to a free image that was removed from a Rfc ] page beacuse it "no longer linked to any page". Thank you. ] 16:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Growth cone vandalism? == | |||
| {{user|Paskari}} pointed out a possible piece of vandalism at ], but it's not really ]-material, because the vandalism is not in progress. On August 25th, {{user|Spaghettimonster}} the sentence "It has more recently been shown that cell fate determinants such as ] and ] (shh) can also act as guidance cues." This seems like textbook vandalism, so I've removed it from view. I don't know growth cones and I don't know Spaghettimonster. Is this vandalism, and is this a problem user? ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 15:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm the ] protine is involved in cell growth so it isn't an imposible claim. This is what happens when you give geeks a free hand in nameing their discoveries.] 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Drosophila biologists make up the best names for some of these things, and when the mammalian homologue is discovered, the name usually sticks. ] 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not my precise area, but since Sonic hedgehog and wnt are cell signalling pathways (see wikified links above) it's probably not vandalism. ] 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why in the world was Geni ?! —] (]) 15:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::(False alarm apparently - reverter hit the wrong button...) —] (]) 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. | |||
| Per ] normally to be avoided, articles should not link to copies of press reports archived on any site in violation of copyright. Per ]: State where you got it, citations should state the original source (i.e. the LA Times) and the intermediate source (i.e. "as retrieved from LexisNexis on October 16, 2006"). Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate ], be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Bearcat and Bucketsofg are expected to conform to ] rather than the liberal interpretation they have applied. For violation of his previously imposed article ban, as well as edit warring, block evasion, and sockpuppety, Arthur Ellis is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one month. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, Arbitration Committee Clerk, ] 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Arthur Ellis is indef blocked per request. --] 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Unjust Deletion: Please reconsider... == | |||
| *Moved to ]. (]) 16:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Vandalism going on== | |||
| There's someone patiently vandalising ] today (and other articles, it looks like). I'm loathe to tackle him myself in case he starts sabotaging my userpages. Would appreciate an intervention, preferably final. Cheers. ] 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Blocked. ] ] 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == There was a link to Porn on one of your pages == | |||
| I don't know where to go to report this...I'm not a member and have never been to the site before. All I know is, while looking up information on Uruguay, I was suddenly directed to a porn site. This link was under "Foreign Relations of Uruguay" under the External Links section. When I clicked on "Embassy of Japan in Montevideo" it took me to megapornvids.com. I am horribly embarrassed and very upset that this happened. Please make sure you fix that as soon as possible. It makes me afraid to click on anything on your site. It is not a good impression for someone like me who is visiting this site for the first time. {{unsigned|207.250.187.66 }} | |||
| :It's been removed, thanks for pointing it out. --] 17:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cripes, that's been in there . ] must not get much activity... <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ouch. That's not good for Misplaced Pages. ''']]''' 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've ] the site. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 02:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bluelinks that should be redlinks again== | |||
| Dear Admins, I don't know where to request this so I will put it here: There are several pages that were created but are empty. Because they have been edited, the links appear as blue thought they should be red. This concerns the archives ], ] and ], which will undoubtedly be filled in time. However, the current status is very confusing for someone doing the archiving. Could some admins please delete these pages, turning the links red again. Cheers, ] ] 18:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed. - ] ] 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ] ] 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hkelkar continue to vigorously edit despite your own WORD== | |||
| Hkelkar, who is an advanced student of physics, has requested a continuance extending from November 24 to December 19 during finals. He has agreed to not edit outside his user pages during this period. While a continuance and continued evidence are arguably futile, see ], as the suggested remedy is a one year ban, a continuance is granted suspending further action until December 19. | |||
| + | |||
| + :Support: | |||
| + :#] 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| + :# I dislike continuances in general, but this is tolerable. ] 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC) ] | |||
| I can't stand by any longer. At first I thought I would just quietly alert your advocates in email (which I did), but this is beyond the pale and beyond what even I can stomach. Since no one else seems to either notice or care, I will say it myself. I am furious that you would have the unmitigated gall to stand before the committee in your own arbitration pleading "finals" while simultaneously, contstantly, vigorously, and ''practically up to this very minute'' disregard '''your own word'''. | |||
| In addition, I assert that any admin who has communicated with you during this time is complicit in what you are doing. I find it hard to believe that the admins in question have no awareness of your pledge. | |||
| Since I've let the cat out the bag, I'll let another cat out as well. I've looked at the evidence suggesting that you are sockpuppet of user SubhashBose (or whatever). It is my belief that not only are you his sockpuppet, you are impersonating ''an actual person named Kelkar'', who is indeed in his "advanced physic finals", but far from you. I also believe his English is faulty, that he's a friend or aquaintance of yours, and that he gave you permission to do this. ''He'' is the one speaking in the IRC chat that Aksi cites, not ''you''. | |||
| I can't describe how personally ''odious'' I find all of your actions to be. I'm not one to whine to authority figures about another person's behaviour, but believe me, I will whine like a stuck pig if you add a single coma outside of this page. | |||
| I am done with you. | |||
| ] 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :I've contacted Hkelkar about this. I have the ] that he just got the datesmixed up, as he has declared in email to his advocates (myself and ]) that he is on a wikibreak until 19 December from today. I'd therefore request that '''if''' any action is to be taken, we leave it until tomorrow (UTC), and if Hkekar is still editing, he should be warned before any other action is taken. I think the allegations of Hkelkar '''not''' actually taking his finals are a bit out of order, as I have no doubt that he is, and we need to ] in any case. Another admin will want to review this, I'm sure, as I'm implicitly involved in this case, but I thought I'd offer what I've been told to the discussion :) <strong>]]]</strong> 19:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The message by NinaEliza here was also posted . <strong>]]]</strong> 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no administrative action to take as the motion for a continuance has not been voted out yet, therefore it is not in effect. However, continued editing may indicate that the request was not made in good faith. I have called Arbitrator Fred Bauder's attention to the matter. In the mean time, if you believe Hkelkar is impersonating someone else, you may wish to add evidence to the evidence page. However, the real life identity of the editor doesn't really have bearing on any possible sanctions or remedies in the case. (It may, however, be related to the method he used to "prove" his innocence of sockpuppetry charges. If you believe this is not sufficiently addressed in the case, please add evidence to the evidence page or a proposed finding of fact to the workshop page.) ] 20:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hkelkar was actively editing today even. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning IP vandals == | |||
| What is the policy for blocking IP vandals? I always thought they had to have been recently warned, as historic vandalism could easily be a different person with the same address (unless there is clear evidence to the contrary), yet I've seen multiple IP addresses blocked for vandalising after a final warning when that final warning was weeks ago and they hadn't been warned since. --] 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Check the block log; speaking only for myself, some of the blocks I've done today involve the same type of vandalism from some IPs that resumes weeks later... because they had been blocked much if not all of that time. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 20:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The block that prompted my question was actually one of yours, ]. I don't see any similarity between the current vandalism and the previous vandalism beyond the similarity that you commonly get between completely unrelated vandals (they generally aren't very imaginative, after all). --] 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: on the 15th and today were all I needed :D <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, bear in mind, people often don't know what their block duration is until the next time they try successfully to edit. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 20:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've seen some admins block after an IPs first edit (I won't mention names but this person blocked over 250 people in one night when I found that example). Really, what is the point of watching someone say "poop" and "penis", etc., etc. four times before blocking? By now, several of them know they get four shots so they keep going to test4 and then stop. What is the real risk? How many times have you seen a vandal say "poop" and "penis", get a warning of some kind, and suddenly reverse himself and start making meaningful edits? If that happened, I would be more worried - but it doesn't. —] (]) 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Oh, certainly; as long as those are short blocks. It's impossible to get a gauge on an IP's history—how many people connect to it, how long it will take Mr. Poopy to grow up, etc.—with one edit, but a short block to make sure the damage stops is fine. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 20:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some people may be testing whether they really can edit, and they might be doing that because they think it is funny. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(To Prodego) Back to my point, how often do you see someone testing to see if they can edit by adding "poop", etc., and then suddenly they start editing like normal people? I don't think I've seen it once. —] (]) 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not too often, but every once and a while I find a few who do. But weeding one positive contributor out of a hundred vandals is worth the effort of giving a polite warning, at least in my mind. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Even if we get someone who "gets his four shots and stops", the purpose of warning them is for them to stop. Blocking is used when they don't stop. If warnings make the vandal stop, then we've accomplished our purpose. As for the original question: it depends. If a vandal is making the same type of vandalism that he was blocked before, then feel free to block without further warning. If it seems like a different person, start again. ]]<sup>(])</sup> 20:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I can't think of any IP vandals that have turned into good editors, but I know plenty of vandals that have stopped after being warned. (Who can say if they would have stopped without the warning, but nevertheless, a block wasn't required.) Remember, you don't have to go through the test templates one at a time - you can jump straight to the "This is the only warning you'll get" template (which I can't remember the name of - I normally give test2 and then test4 in bad cases) if it's blatant vandalism and couldn't possibly be mistaken for experimentation. | |||
| Regarding the case discussed above, I'm not how conclusive repeating the final letter of "fuck" is for determining that it's the same person. Especially when the edit on the 15th was a single edit with weeks of nothing either side and only got a warning from a bot. The extra effort of adding a warning template and seeing if the stop before blocking them is tiny, and it can save unnecessary blocks. We have no idea how often anon users try and make a useful edit, discover their address is blocked because of someone else and just leave - I doubt it's that unusual. | |||
| --] 21:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There's no ironclad policy; it's very much a judgment call, and different admins will react differently—and, I've been wrong before. In this case, I remain sufficiently convinced. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Even if they haven't been warned, I will still block the user if the user continues to vandalize. See ]. That user has not been warned today, but they were last blocked on the 14th for repeated vandalism. I blocked the user for 6 months as he/she is a returning vandal and continues to vandalize regardless of being warned. ''']]''' 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::That case is very different - the user had been blocked and had started vandalising almost as soon as the block expired, it's safe to assume it's the same user, so immediately blocking for long makes complete sense. --] 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Account Deletion Request == | |||
| Hello, | |||
| I hope this is the right place to go. If not, be so kind as to help. | |||
| Please delete my account. Far too many random people and random administrators are fighting over it, especially today, and I have been disheartened by this entire random and hostile Misplaced Pages culture. | |||
| If you have any questions...I dare say...post a message...but I fear it may be reverted by a random user or administrator anyway. | |||
| Please delete it. Editing has been made worthless. Thank you. ] 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| P.S.-If this account cannot be deleted, I do not object to posting my username and password on a forum for the public to use freely. ] 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Clarify, please? <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The closest we can get to deleting your account is deleting your user page (which doesn't exist anyway) and user talk page. Any more than that would leave gaps in the edit histories of any articles you've edited, which would cause licensing problems (we have to be careful to credit people correctly). I can't remember the exact policy on when user talk pages are deleted, but I can't see it being a problem in your case. If you want it deleted, just say so here and I'm sure someone will do so (I'm off to bed soon, so it won't be me). --] 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: hum.. AGF and all that but look at the user history of that account.... well.... --] 23:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::] concerns aside, "I do not object to posting my username and password on a forum for the public to use freely" is too close to a threat to let slide. This may be what the user wants, but I'm going to be ] and indef the account. The user talk page will remain. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I would certainly AGF regarding the forum comment - it sounds to me like an innocent misunderstanding of how things work. If you're going to indef block the user, you might as well delete their talk page. We don't need a record of warnings given to a blocked account. --] 11:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *If possible, I would prefer that the talk page remain - this user account was created largely to accuse me of vandalism, and the talk page history includes both my attempts at dispute resolution and the various warnings that RememberKigali got. If he/she shows up again under a different name, I would prefer to have the history available in case this ever ends up in RFC or ArbComm. Thanks, ] 11:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::It could be blanked, then. --] 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed. I had delved into the user's edits prior to the block and was convinced that the request to delete the "account" (read: the talk page) was likely an effort to hide the evidence (what I meant when I wrote "his may be what the user wants, but I'm going to be ] and indef the account"). The seeming threat to go public with the account iced it. :) <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 14:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Thanks. ] 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hey, would anybody mind closing this down? By ] (it's obvious it will go to deletion), but mostly because it's a severe case of ] for the author of the article, who is, quite frankly, acting like a real jerk to the voters (read the history, and you'll see I'm not overstating). ]<sup>]]</sup> 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. <tt>].]</tt> 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Current events portal == | |||
| The current events portal is showing yesterday twice with today's events listed under 28 November at the top of the page. I can't figure out why so I would be grateful if someone could have a look at it. | |||
| == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal == | |||
| Regards | |||
| {{atop green|result=Appeal successful. There were some murmurings requesting a topic ban from Kansas, but nothing approaching consensus. Of course, ] would be well-advised to be careful not to go back to the behaviors that led to a block in the first place. But in the meantime, welcome back. <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]: | |||
| (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) | |||
| ] 09:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It was vandalism two subpages down; I've reverted it. --] 09:26, 29 November 2006 (]]]) | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == User continuously repeating same edits == | |||
| * '''(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) | |||
| *:] from KC:{{tq2|Yes I can write in paragraphs and list different ideas in separate paragraphs instead of a giant run on sentence.{{pb}}I wasn’t trying to right great wrongs but noticed the contrast of the definition of ] on Misplaced Pages and these communities being described as suburban (meanwhile some of these suburbs verifiably having lower residential to job ratio than the city and also a higher overall population density with some suburbs gaining population during the day due to commuters coming into them). This is essentially why on my case page It says I feel as tho something had to be “fixed”. I thought my edits were being removed simply because people didn’t like this place or some of its past so I felt as tho I was simply being purposefully misled which caused me to not follow proper civility.{{pb}}I just wanted to clarify that these places weren’t only residential and were major employment areas that they sometimes have a lower percentage of single family homes. This to me was always the opposite of what suburban meant, atleast what I learned during grade school and what it says on Misplaced Pages. That’s where the confusion came from. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is ], instead they ] and things went downhill from there. I think ] of {{tq|Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area}} (which Misplaced Pages deems urban) {{tq|when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties}} (which Misplaced Pages deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with ] page which provides the definition that {{tq|An urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000.}} An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. ] (]) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the ] article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. ] (]) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Tulsi (unblock request) == | |||
| In ] article user endlessly repeats same edits (changes genres, and also some images), despite being reverted all the time, with general consensus not on his side. He also has very bad editing style (apparently he does not use preview) with up to 10 edits following in rapid succession. | |||
| {{atop green|User unblocked. ] 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I request ban of user from editing the article. | |||
| * {{userlinks|Tulsi}} | |||
| * Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by ] during an AN thread (]) for undisclosed paid editing | |||
| * Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (]) | |||
| Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying: | |||
| P.S. Sorry for using URL to link to his user page - because of '''@''' in his username, normal linking does not work! ] 11:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{talk quote block|Dear Sysops, | |||
| I've blocked the account for the User name. They have been asked twice now to pick another one, but haven't. ]|] 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I sincerely apologize for my past actions, which were problematic and deceptive. I fully understand the concerns raised, and I deeply regret my involvement. On April 3, 2024, my account was blocked by Rosguill in relation to undisclosed paid editing associated with the {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361|DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment}}. However, I want to clarify that my involvement in these matters was minimal, with only minor interactions in the past. I have never written articles for payment, and I do not support paid editing. | |||
| == New guideline ] == | |||
| The issues in question occurred ], prior to the block. At that time, I admitted my conflict of interest (COI) and disclosed it on the relevant article talk pages. Following discussions, my global and local rights were removed, but the block was not enforced until two years later. Many of the articles in question were deleted, so I did not find it necessary to disclose anything further. Moving forward, I have no intention of creating or editing COI-related articles. However, if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article, I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review, as I did with the article ]. | |||
| This subject has caused much aggravation on Misplaced Pages, and if you know of any previous attempts for solving it (other than "Wrong Version", which I think is unhelpful), please let me know. Otherwise, please try to find some holes in it. If you find that you agree with the proposal, let's try to make this a guideline. - ] (] <small>•</small> ]) 13:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This is a proposal to find "the right version" to protect. It's foolhardy. All it does it add ammunition to people involved in the edit war. I don't want to know what would happen if this was used during a heated debate. It'd be bedlam. We already have people who don't believe that admins are ever neutral. This just adds fuel to that fire. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've replied to these concerns on the ], where a healthy discussion is in swing concerning this proposal. ] (] <small>•</small> ]) 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created , all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the ] and ]s, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA. | |||
| == IP talk pages == | |||
| I acknowledge that I was not fully familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies in the past, but I have since taken the time to understand them better. I have been an active and committed user since October 2014, with significant contributions across various Wikimedia projects. I have also served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. | |||
| I found this ] that says ''"a bot will begin blanking these pages per the discussion"''. That was in March, and the category now contains several hundreds of IP addresses. Does anybody know the point of this? (]) 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance. | |||
| :From the discussion ], looks like it ended up being a "meh don't delete them, just blank them"...so we should prolly either blank the talk pages and decat them or maybe just decat them. ] 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I can set a bot up to blank these if you want.] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 14:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah. I suppose then that we should get rid of the category. Since that involves editing all those pages anyway, we might as well use a bot to blank them once. Doing this on a regular basis doesn't appear to be worth the trouble. (]) 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::For some reason I thought one of the Tawkerbots was doing this, but if not, then yes, someone should do it. ] 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages. | |||
| == Spam socks == | |||
| Sincerely, | |||
| There's a list of single purpose accounts at ]. The contributions are clearly part of a coordinated spam campaign. Apparently abandoned and no immediate danger, but they might be sleepers. What is the procedure to deal with those? Am I right to assume they may be blocked indefinitely without needing further warnings? (excluding the IPs of course) If so, should I add a (not quite appropriate) {{tl|spam5i}} or would a simple "spam only account" in the block summary suffice? ] 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] ] 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request. | |||
| :Support blocking entire bunch of them as spam-only accounts as soon as each account does the same spam routine. <tt>].]</tt> 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Tulsi was blocked after UPE allegations that had been outstanding for around 2 years essentially caught up with them. They have now attested to having never edited for pay, which was the question they originally failed to answer twice (], ]), leading to the block. In the unblock request, they give a sincere undertaking not to engage in any more UPE. | |||
| == E.Shubee == | |||
| They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. ] 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This ] continues to personally attack other editors because he does not agree with them. The warnings have been low key and subtle in hopes to assist him become a better contributor. I really feel this user needs to be heavily scrutinized. He is not contributing but is in fact creating issues on Misplaced Pages violating ]. He currently has been adopted by The Hybrid, but I'm not sure if that is enough. He has been blocked twice for various things. I feel that he needs some stronger guidance in order to help him become a positive contributor to Misplaced Pages. ----] (]) 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". <span>]]</span> 15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==National Portrait Gallery IP== | |||
| **I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: ]. ] 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not certain where to post this, but an IP registered to the ], {{User|217.207.85.50}}, seems to pop up every few months to slap on a copyright violation directly at the top of certain articles ( ), most recently yesterday at ] (as ). This strikes me as extremely unprofessional if, in fact, the person really does represent the NPG. I left a note, but I believe this calls for direct attention by admins, if for the copyright question if nothing else. Thank you. --] 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per ]. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. ] (]/]) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This strikes me as something Wikimedia needs to deal with directly, and not for admins. - ]]] 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Question''': We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment {{tq|if I am ever in a situation where I am '''required''' to contribute to such an article}} (emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? ] (]) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I left a message at ]. ] 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *: I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to ] provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states {{tq|<em>I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review</em>}} (emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. ] (]/]) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This kind of thing crops up from time to time. Galleries and libraries who own paintings may mistakenly claim they hold copyright to any images of the works of art or claim that they must give permission for those images to be used. However, many countries uphold the idea that photographic reproductions of public domain two-dimensional works of art are public domain themselves. Aside from trying to educate them (which likely won't go over well), there's not much we can do other than remove these notices. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ] (]) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. ] (]) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. ] (]) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Many museums (at least in the U.S.) ''do'' own the copyright on images of their objects. They limit photography, let individuals use the photos for their stated project (book or whatever) and retain copyright over any use beyond that. I am not familiar with UK law at all, but the gallery's website states the following: "We also exert strict controls on all photography in the Gallery, which is allowed only on the understanding that copyright rests with the us and that any further reproduction deriving from the resulting photographic materials is subject to our written permission." I'm not saying this person ''is'' right about these photos, but they certainly could be. I'm far from an expert in copyright law, but I am pursuing graduate studies in museum studies and this subject came up recently in one of my classes. Of course, they can ''claim'' that they have copyright and not actually have it as well. But they frequently do. ] 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Make the most of the second chance ] (]) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. ] ] 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi == | |||
| :Not entirely. For the US see ]. In the case of artwork that is public domain, images that merely reproduce the artwork can not be copyrighted because copyright protects creativity and there is nothing creative about making a reproduction. The purpose of limiting reproduction is to maintain the market for their own reproductions, of course, but while reproducing an image might violate the museum's agreement with whomever made the original photograph, its not a copyright violation on our part to host the image. I don't know about the UK. ] 18:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::UK law is irrelavant as the Foundation has no presence in the UK. ] 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Administrators, | |||
| :::Without endorsing Raul654's comment, this has come up before. No action has been taken by the Foundation in this regard.--] 19:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Law school must have entire courses devoted to teaching how to write sentences like that. ] 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The National Portrait Gallery are big enough and scary enough to take on Misplaced Pages if this were serious. They will have taken legal advice already. This is a token protest, they are probably advised not to risk a test case. The British Galleries collectively would not want to risk an outcome similar to the "Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp" they prefer things left as vague as they are. ] 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I take Brad's statement, deliberately content-free as it may have been, to suggest a reasonable course of action when this sort of thing arises--i.e., remove the notice as ] did and do nothing else. Certainly we cannot threaten institutions and we should not invoke the Foundation in doing so. ] 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am writing to request your assistance regarding my draft, ], which has been repeatedly declined over the past year despite my adherence to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines. | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Over the course of several months, I have worked diligently to gather reliable, published, and independent sources, including magazine articles and other credible publications, that meet Misplaced Pages’s notability criteria. My most recent submission was declined in less than an hour—a timeframe that strongly suggests it was not even reviewed carefully or thoroughly. | |||
| This ip is vandalising those articles: ] and ] | |||
| :I checked up on the history, and it looks like a content dispute to me. Also, f I could advise, when you revert, please leave in other people's changes in the meantime (e.g., you reverted one too) - the undo button does well for this situation. -]<sup>]]</sup> 00:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This is particularly frustrating as I see numerous approved articles on Misplaced Pages that cite sources far less reliable or even completely broken. In contrast, my article contains verifiable references that adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages’s policies. This inconsistency feels unfair and raises concerns about bias in the review process. | |||
| == Review of Indef block of SuperDeng == | |||
| I have followed all guidelines in good faith and cannot accept decisions that appear to be based on personal opinion rather than policy. It feels as though my article is being subjected to an unjust standard, especially when compared to articles that seem to bypass scrutiny. I genuinely wonder if this process is influenced by factors beyond content quality, as I have no means to “pay” for an article to be published, unlike some others. | |||
| {{userlinks|SuperDeng}} has been indef blocked, apparently without consultation. After a series of blocks for personal attacks and other bad behavior he was finally banned for one month with the understanding he would be mentored after the ban was up ] and ]. | |||
| I kindly request that an administrator reviews my draft with impartiality and provides clear, actionable feedback. Otherwise, I am truly exhausted by the repeated rejections and dismissals with no valid reasoning. | |||
| The ban was extended to two months for sockpuppetry. ] After the 2 month ban expired, it was discovered that he had returned as {{User|Lokqs}} (only after the ban) but also as {{user|The Green Fish}} (edited during the ban). I reblocked for one month (beginning Nov 5). Following more proven sockpuppetry, Woohookitty applied an indef ban, apparently without consultation. | |||
| To provide context, here are some of the sources I included: | |||
| SuperDeng has e-mailed and posted numerous editors asking for the indef ban to be lifted. I think it should at least be reviewed. The choice seems to be between an indef ban for exhausting community patience, or a return to the one month ban followed by mentorship, assuming he can keep out of the sock drawer for a whole month. (If he can't stop using sockpuppets, a rolling series of one month bans would amount to an indef ban anyway.) I don't have a strong opinion either way as I have never encountered him outside of my role as checkuser clerk. I think his complaint that an admin has a personal grudge against him shows a lack of awareness of his own problematic editing behavior, and the fact that his sockpuppets are so easily detected shows he hasn't yet learned how to work within our system. ] 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| • https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/ | |||
| :I am not aware of much disruption from this user, therefore blocking him indefinitely without prior consultation was harsh. His habit of sockpuppeteering is ridiculous and even harmless, as he is dyslexic and easily recognizable. I urged him to stop using sockpuppets for no apparent reason. If he perseveres, I will support an indefinite ban. So far, I am inclined to give him another chance, as his behaviour is not really disruptive (if I don't ignore some compelling diffs, of course). --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| • Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com | |||
| :: Sockpuppets are not ''banned'', only proscribed. I would suggest that if puppetry is the full extent of the problem then ArbCom is the logical step, and a request for an emergency injunction to use a single account pending what would presumably be a final resolution to the same effect, but I have not yet gone through the contribs in detail (I bet puppetry is ''not'' the only problem). For those others who wish to do so, these are the identified socks: | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Beenhj}} | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Cvaltnm}} | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Klingoner}} | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Bignra}} | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Gipornm}} | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Fgbvnm}} | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Mblafg}} | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Nickmolo}} | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Mortcv}} | |||
| ::* {{vandal|Toadfootre}} | |||
| :: There may be others. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Hmmm. well, if those are socks, then I'd say he's a bit obsessive but not a vandal. Some of the edits are completely sound, others need taking to Talk, but there is some evidence of engagement in Talk - this does not look like your run-of-the-mill POV pusher, more like an editor with strong opinions. I'll go through the edits of the main account as well, I think, but there is nothing obviously wrong with several of the edits of the sock accounts, and none of them are self-evident vandalism or trolling. Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture yet. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Um. Look at his . It's about a heck alot more than just using sockpuppets. Deng has been disruptive almost since day 1. If he doesn't deserve an indefinite block, no one does. He's written alot of people. And? And I'm sure he's given the same song and dance he has on his RfCU page, about how I'm biased and he's done nothing wrong. Um. 3RR vio. Wikistalking. Disruption. Sockpuppetry. There aren't alot of policies that he has NOT violated. So let's say someone ends the ban or shortens it. Looking at that block log and his talk page, does anyone seriously think that he's going to change? Mentorship will not work on someone who isn't willing to change and Deng has shown 0 inkling to change. He thinks that what he does is right. Look at his RfCU page. In late October, he actually claimed that he'd never used socks despite the numerous pieces of evidence. He has spent most of his time on the project blocked. I think that says it all. As for his socks, it's a continuation of what he's done in the past. He blanks other people's contribs. He refuses to take anyone else's thoughts into consideration. He stalked another user (Kurt Leyman) for a full 2 months, reverting every edit he could. He hasn't even attempted dispute resolution. He's called users stupid. He knew about the 3RR rule and yet, even after warnings, he reverted someone EIGHT TIMES in 90 minutes. That was during the spring. And this is the tip of the iceberg. "Go to ArbCom". WHY? So they can just confirm what I've said? There are clear cut cases where someone should be blocked indefinitely. This is one of those cases. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yup, found that, didn't get round to coming back and commenting (my bad). He can fuck off, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| • 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com | |||
| == Appeals == | |||
| Thank you for your time and consideration xx | |||
| It seems to me that a blocked or banned user has very limited means at their disposal to appeal the block or ban. If they want to go to ArbCom to appeal it, they will have to use a tedious mechanism of edits-by-proxy via email. The vast majority of bans are entirely uncontroversial, unambiguous trolls or other abusers of the project, but there are some users who get caught up in disputes which perhaps escalate beyond the point of no return, to the regret of all. I have now had two or three users email me about this kind of thing, and there is a discussion on WikiEN-L at the moment as well. | |||
| ] (]) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It seems to me that we have three ways of dealing with this: | |||
| # Unblock the account on the strict understanding that it is used solely for the purpose of appealing the ban | |||
| # Allow the person to edit anonymously or (for privacy) through an openly declared alternate account, again solely for the purposes of appealing the ban | |||
| # Do nothing. | |||
| :Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset ]. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Or maybe some other option I haven't thought of (quite likely). I have to say that option 2 looks a bit contrived, but I also think that simply unblocking indef-blocked accounts is likely to be perceived as asking for trouble. If an account is restricted to ] and ], for example, I don't see it matters much either way whether it's a role account or the main one. That said, a carefully-worded exception to the ban evasion clause of ] would not, in my view, expose the project to much risk, as the mechanism for dismissing frivolous cases at ArbCom appears to be reasonably effective. | |||
| ::So who can I turn to for help? If administrators cannot assist in overriding the draft declines, to whom can I escalate this issue? I am deeply concerned that my article has been repeatedly declined without proper consideration of the sources I’ve provided. These sources are reliable, published, and fully comply with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, yet they continue to be dismissed without even being properly reviewed. | |||
| ::It’s becoming clear that the rejection process isn’t being carried out fairly. I can’t help but feel that my article is being judged based on factors other than content quality, especially when I see articles approved with far less solid references. | |||
| ::I understand that the review process is based on policy, but when it seems clear that my draft isn’t being given the attention it deserves, I need to know where I can seek help to ensure fairness. | |||
| ::I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly? | |||
| ::Thank you for your time. ] (]) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::]. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the ] and ] carefully. ] (]) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Lanak20}} I actually ]. They're all malformed at best and unusable at worst. ] —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I've blocked the OP as a spam-advertising-only account. I should add that it's pretty obvious they've used other accounts to promote this person, I believe most recently as of last October.--] (]) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal == | |||
| Clearly this is not intended for the unambiguous cases, but for those where there is a decent history of productive edits with perhaps one spectacular piece of foolishness which is regretted in hindsight. {{user|nobs01}} is an example: I believe he has a sincere desire to contribute to the project (and yes, he could always wait a month), but has discussed the issue in perfectly civil terms on WikiEN-l; it may be that a request to ArbCom would convert the ban to a topical ban or parole. Or I could just be falling prey to Mary Poppinsism again, who knows. Anyway, I thought I'd start a debate because it seems to me that we ought at least to think about it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop green|Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. ] (]) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions {{tq|1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.}} Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal. | |||
| I translated ] (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons I improved ] and wrote articles for famous trans activists ] and ]. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at ] and rewrote the article. I also helped expand ] and wrote ]. I improved ] and ]. I improved ]. I rewrote and considerably expanded ] as well as ]. I expanded the article on the ]. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report '']''. I expanded the articles on ] and ]. I rewrote ] to follow ] and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. '''Most proudly''', I wrote ] and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Misplaced Pages was a case of either ] or following ] and ]. | |||
| :I don't have any examples offhand, but I thought historically this was handled by unblocking the account and limiting their participation like you suggested. I would think they could easily be blocked again if they didn't keep to the arbitration and advocate pages (or perhaps there talk page also) or if they continued whatever foolishness got them to this point in the first place. Its also possible that some of the folks over at ] might be willing to devote time to acting as proxy in the case that someone wasn't able to be unblocked for whatever reason. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome. | |||
| ::Regarding #2, beat to a pulp then beat the pulp. The last thing we need is official sockpuppets (no matter what the stated reason). | |||
| ::I would go with #1 or with #4, they post their arguments on their user talk page and ask another editor to post them here. This would only apply to community bans; arbcom bans must be appealed to arbcom. And regarding nobs specifically, his one year block expires on Christmas Eve eve (or Boxing Day minus 3, depending on your continent), which is way sooner than any arb proceeding is likely to take. ] 20:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Dunno, some requests are turned round pretty quickly. Cases not so, obviously. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, ] (]) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::My understanding is similar to that of Shell. The blocked editor can request arbitration through (ideally) an arbitrator or (if absolutely necessary) through some other trusted proxy individual. They can either request at the same time that they be unblocked for the purposes of participating in the arbitration (usually the Arbs are amenable to considering such requests, and I've seen Arbs make specific conditional unblock recommendations in their case acceptance statements) or request an injunction to that effect as soon as the arbitration case is opened (I've never seen such a request denied without very strong grounds). | |||
| :'''Support.''' ] (]/]) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::In cases where an editor would like to have the length of his ban reduced, I would think that emailing an Arb requesting that a Motion in a Prior Case be filed would be sufficient; there's not necessarily a need for an entirely new Arb case. ](]) 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. ] (]) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some banned editors have made it clear that they are not interested in participating in the dispute resolution process in any way except disruption. Others, yes, need ways to appeal, but those can usually be arranged either through their talk page or through e-mail. I do ''not'' see this as a major problem. ] 21:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Welcome back comrade. ] (]) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is ''supposed'' to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. ] ] 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Snow Support''' ] (]) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Strong support'''. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. ] (]) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. ] (]) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Query''' Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? ] (]) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Enthusiastic support''' YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' This is a convincing and sincere appeal. ] (]) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', Welcome. ~] ] <sup>「] / ]」</sup> 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as they have convincingly demonstrated change. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. ] (]) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Copyvio Problem == | |||
| == Need review of endless ongoing situation == | |||
| Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something. | |||
| The failure of an administrator to enforce an arbitration has resulted in a situation where a user keeps making edits, posting POV flags, and engaging in endless circular and idiosyncratic claims regarding the classification of far right groups. | |||
| See the recent request for enforcement and the long discussion which went nowhere | |||
| ] (]) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| See the requestr for another aDMIN TO REVIEW | |||
| :To be clear, I don't think that @] is really at any fault here. | |||
| See the post today which is the exact claim that was refuted in arbitration and for which the user was placed on probation | |||
| :] (]) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] please see {{tl|copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. ] (]) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Lardlegwarmers block appeal == | |||
| What is it going to take to enforce this arbitration? This is an enormous waste of editing time and energy.--] 21:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. ] ] 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Lardlegwarmers}} | |||
| :From a quick review, it looks to me like Intangible's edits on ] have become disruptive. He has repeatedly added pov tags, seemingly on the theory that it is in principle impossible for Misplaced Pages to assemble a list of far-right or far-left groups. Tomorrow I will apply the arbcom remedy and ban him from the page for a week, unless I have misunderstood what is going on. Comments invited. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of ] from COVID-19. This was about ], although I subsequently noticed ] as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misrepresentation of arbcom decision might be one. ]. ] 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement from Lardlegwarmers === | |||
| :::Furthermore, this list was absent from the ] article ''for almost five months'', until ] seemingly thought it was necessary to add it again to the article. I removed the sort-like list from ] after discussion on that article's talk page . ] 22:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it.<ref>]</ref> Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted ] discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @], blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks. | |||
| {{talk reflist}} | |||
| === Statement from Tamzin === | |||
| Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:{{tq2|Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Discussion among uninvolved editors === | |||
| *This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as {{tq|Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}} which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups); {{tq|which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's ] promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: '''Oppose unblock''' and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to ]. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. ] (]) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after the <del>ban</del> <ins>block</ins> expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. ] (]) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. ] (]) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. ] (]) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. It truly takes some ] to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. '''Weak support for an indef''' because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. ] (]/]) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock'''. The topic ban was on ''the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed'', not ''the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace''. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but ''within three hours'' of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for ]. I won't call for an indef ], but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - ] <sub>]</sub> 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No unblock''' - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. ] (]) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock''' - While I usually support giving editors ] to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per ] norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like ], ], and ]. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. ] • ] ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose unblock'''. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock.''' What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. ] (]) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. ] (]) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *An account that ] is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a ] unblock request that thoroughly ]. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Indeed. ] (]) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' this specific response {{tq| Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement}} is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue, {{tq|my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed}}. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say that {{tq|a block for this stuff seems harsh.}} ] ] 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I '''oppose indef''' for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they ''absolutely must contribute positively'' and following established PGs. ] ] 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. ] (]) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''', clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --] 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, ''then'' let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however...''' I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a ], it is a reasonable ''opinion''. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). '''HOWEVER''', civil discourse ''is'' essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. ] (]) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of ] and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. {{ping|Tamzin}} playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? ] (]) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be ] for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. {{PB}} If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. ] (]) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::The boundary is ]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Buffs: In the ''realm of hypothetical'' I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it ''might even still be up today.'' However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as ''abject defiance'' to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to {{tq|all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic}}, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about ''if you were to post the same thing'' to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would ''not be questioned'' one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of ] and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. ] ] 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by ] we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. ] (]) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, oppose indef''' - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. ] (]) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely''' - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. ] (]) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose unblock''' but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. ''']]''' 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Comments from involved editors === | |||
| == Arbcom campaigning images == | |||
| * Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to ] two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to ]. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading ] and following the advice there, especially ]. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that {{tq|apparently two wrongs make a right}}, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is ]. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. ] (] • ]) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. ] (]) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. ] (]) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: '''1:''' ] and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; '''2:''' ] and simply f<s>**</s>king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, '''advise indef block''' for either ] or ]. <span style="text-shadow: #E9967A 0em 0em 1em;">]]</span> 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. ] (]) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers == | |||
| T-shirts? --<font color="3300FF">] </font> 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :I've got a premium Cafepress account; it could happen very, very easily. :D ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| | result = This is not an administrative issue. ] (]/]) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, why not? I'll take 3 Tawkerbot for ArbCom t-shirts, size medium. | |||
| }} | |||
| ::Seriously, so long as the campaign ads aren't giant signature banners or ] violations, I don't see any harm in it. --] <small>]</small> 21:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just go ahead and give me your credit card number while I print them up... ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar. | |||
| :Political banners and slogans should be prohibited. —]→] • 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Like tjstrf said, as long as they aren't breaking actual rules, I don't have a problem with them. If they bleed over into other namespaces, it'd be a problem. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I agree with Centrx. This isn't the attitude that we want to foster: we want a healthy, co-operative community, not political parties and factions. ] ] 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If we start seeing banners that say "Daniel.Bryant eats puppies" or something similar, ''then'' I'd agree that it runs counter to a co-operative community. Multiple users vying for a single position doesn't quite count (in my opinion). ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::He's Australian, right? God only knows ]. ] 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] - what the hell are those little '?' symbols against Vegemite and Marmite? ] 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I'm not against the election (that is, multiple users vying for a single position), I'm against people declaring political allegiances. ] ] 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Fair enough. I just don't feel that declaring support for an ArbCom candidate is as decisive as declaring political allegiances (an admittedly US-centric attitude). I also just wanted to use "foo eats puppies" in a sentence. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is internal advertising. "As long as they aren't breaking actual rules" is a meaningless reference to 'the rulebook', when the question at hand is whether there needs to be an explicit rule forbidding these sorts of advertisements. —]→] • 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The question, as you stated, is whether there needs to be an explicit rule forbidding these sorts of ads. My answer is no; the "they aren't breaking actual rules" bit is the rationale for my answer, not my answer out-and-out. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? ] (]) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It is my belief that these should be deleted as per ''CSD T1: Templates of a divisive nature'', but am refraining from doing so until there;s been some discussion. By their very essence, they promote campaigning and factioning, which shouldn't be the point of the election. This is a bad idea, and shouldn't continue. For those of you who argue that they aren't in the template namespace, my reply is that namespace is irrelevant, what's important is how they're used. ] ] 21:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems like a question for ], not ] as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at ] or the Help Desk. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bah rulecreep. OK, is how mine is used. Divisive? ] | ] 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC). | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :Misplaced Pages cannot have political parties, just individuals. There's a difference between campaigning for a person and campaigning for a platform, and no sufficiently divisive issues have come up (which revolved around the arbcom at least) to be the basis for such a thing. The only thing even close to a party philosophy is deletionism/inclusionism, and those have nothing to do with arbcom. --] <small>]</small> 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I hasten to point you to ] (et al.) and ] to give you two quick examples of Wikipedian political parties. They are certainly possible here, and very much exist: after all, all a party is made of individuals... The point is, having a big "VOTE FOR X" stamp promotes the idea that Misplaced Pages is about competing philosophies, not about writing an awesome <u>collaborative</u> encyclopedia. We are, or we should be, about consensus and common ground, not bickering, infighting, and creating divisions in the way that a "FloNight Party" or a "Daniel.Bryant Party" does. ] ] 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Reporting Administrator Abuse == | |||
| : Given how ArbCom elections are run the probability of factions forming based on this is fairly small. They strike me as humorous boxes not doing any harm. If in the future there becomes a problem we can deal with it then. ] 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--] (]) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::images != templates, so they can't be speedily deleted. You ''could'' run an IfD on them, though I doubt it'd pass. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: To quote myself several inches up this page: ''For those of you who argue that they aren't in the template namespace, my reply is that namespace is irrelevant, what's important is how they're used.'' To put it otherwise: if I take a photograph of a userbox, upload it, and transclude it on my userpage, does it magically cease to be a template because it's not in the same namespace anymore? ] ] 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh pshaw, that assumes that I'm going to actually ''read'' this thread. ;P | |||
| ::::I still don't feel that it should be deleted as T1. If I happened across it (hypothetical situation, assuming this entire discussion hadn't happened), I wouldn't hesitate to remove the db tag and tell the user to send it through IfD. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. ] (]) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm failing to see much of a problem with this at the moment.] 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Given there licensing, shouldn't they be on the commons? ] <small>]</small> 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :So there's two things here. | |||
| ::These were clearly intended quasi-humorously, have had extremely limited dissemination, and probably more people are aware of them as a result of this thread on the noticeboard than were previously. ] 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is '''not''' vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than ] (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment. | |||
| :* Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and ] on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) ], especially when you call them "delusional". | |||
| :If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. ] (]) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Vandalism has a '''very''' specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see ] for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is '''not''' vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly '''not''' vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ok thank you for telling me ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Where are the ]? ] (]) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--] (]) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they ''initially'' reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear ]. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--] (]) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator ] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of ]. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad ] (]) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. ] (]) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had ''no right'' to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--] (]) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said '''Do not edit the page''' ] (]) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ec}} There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed ''"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below"'' with the bright red ''"Please do not modify it"'' at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. ] (]) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. ] (]) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. ] (]) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{tq|without the presence of diffs}}. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --] (]) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:* ''Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. '' Now.... where is the trout? ] ] 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*:Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? ] (]) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who ''origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open'' . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which ''is'' technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were ] to revert a ]. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit ''after'' having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote ''again'' , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used ''at all'' in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no ''violation'' at all, and the only thing needed here is a ] or at least a {{tl|trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| While we are on the subject, what about heading off the inevitable placement of these sort of endorsements in ''signatures''. Even a seemingly innocuous "vote in the ArbCom elections" trailed in someone's signature could get lots of exposure, and could lead the unwary to a page endorsing various candidates and suggesting who to vote for. That would be something to stamp on. Hard. | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Ban appeal from Rathfelder == | |||
| I say limit such things to people's userspaces. Allow voters and candidates to have a notice on their talk page, and a page in their userspace to comment on the candidates and who they intend to vote for, but no campaigning on article talk pages. User talk pages only. ] 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Putting a link in a signature is a totally different issue and, I agree, should be prohibited. | |||
| :Same with actively putting this on ''other'' people's talk pages (or anywhere else); the caveat for my opinion of keeping these images is that they are applied to a user's page '''only''' by that user. If I got one of these slapped somewhere (either as a false show of support or by someone trying to curry my support), I'd have a totally different attitude. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::To clear up one or two things: firstly, I did not create any "bumpersticker", nor had any knowledge of such doing until someone posted on my user talk page. Although I did have the chance to say "no" to having mine used, I saw no real reason not to. The question here is "will these create divisions etc. within the community, therefore be a (loosely-interpreted) T1". My question to you is "how are these more divisive than any userbox that states your political affiliation/religious views"? Really... '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Extension of response <small>(I really should learn to read the whole thread before responding...)</small>: I totally agree with the stance of prohibiting placing these anywhere bar the userspace, and for this to occur, it must be the "owner" *cough* of the userspace who does it. Otherwise, as someone rightfully put, that is pushing your opinion onto someone else, and should be viewed with the same contempt as spam-canvassing messages to other users' page for XfD's etc. And, although I have no idea what my food of preference has to do with ''any'' of this, lets just say I don't eat puppies...nor Vegemite, for that matter :) '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Obviously we need a userbox to declare whether one is or is not in favour of arbcom election bumper stickers. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Rathfelder}} | |||
| There are at least four of these so far: ]. There are 34 candidates at the time of writing, so maybe we can look forward to another 30 of these. I'll vote for the one with the most inventive design... ] 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ] for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page | |||
| * ] declined by the community | |||
| * ] not submitted for review by the community for not complying with ] | |||
| Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here: | |||
| A genuine concern though. If people put these stickers on their pages to show who they intend to vote for, then the image page (which shows where the images are being used) becomes a "endorsement page" by the back door. Judging from the bad stories I heard about this last time, this might be a bad idea. ] 00:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqb|I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.<br> | |||
| I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.}} ] (] · ]) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support''' - If there's been no socking ''during'' the ban. ] (]) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Question: what parties? I don't see a huge partisan split among the candidates. Ok, so I'm known for being one way, but a half dozen other candidates are in general agreement with me on the critical matters. Phil Sandifer, for example, is known for being the other way. There are perhaps three or four other candidates who would agree on the practices. I don't see where any of the candidates has grandstanded on a wiki-political issue, so I don't see where we can really get parties forming. I don't see the "deletionist/inclusionist" split operative on ArbCom selection, and we don't have folks who "lost" a divisive RFAR swearing vengeance, so I'm not sure that ''this particular'' election can, at least with the present prominent candidates, generate much heat. | |||
| *:In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. ] ] 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Then again, the bumperstickers are ''parodies.'' The people who have made the ones I've seen have been joking, both about the idea of "campaigning" and the idea of there being political parties at Misplaced Pages. People can take those jokes the wrong way, infamously so, but none of the bumpersticker creators, that I know of, has been guilty of anything but puckishness. ] 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
*::Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? ] (]) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| *:::Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. ] ] 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've got a small sidebet on Guy shoehorning ] into fifteen more threads before Christmas :) ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 10:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::''"Phil Sandifer is known for being the other way"'' - sorry, but I had a real '']'' moment when you said that - flashback to the "Is he one of us?" "No, he's one of them!" scene in a very early episode :-). --]<sup>]</sup> 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I created ] to start tracking these. Personally, I think they're a bad idea and I'd prefer they all went away. I don't think we should add !campaign to !vote in the Misplaced Pages lexicon. —] <sup>]</sup> 10:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that category is a bad idea. These images were supposed to be mostly harmless fun, now your category makes them look like an official part of the election, not like the bumper sticker parodies they really are. ] ] 11:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, if all the images get deleted, you can speedy the category. :-) I don't see where the category makes them official more than someone encountering one on a user page, which is how the vast majority of people will encounter them. Delete 'em all. —] <sup>]</sup> 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't see why there's so much fuzz about so trivial a matter. All Wikipedians have the right to voice their opinions on their talk pages, which they do by posting stickers. This is a very small scale development which needs not be discussed at such a length. When you started a category, you lumped all of these individual things together, representing them as a sort of "phenomenon", which is plain wrong. I would rather address the issue of massive campaigning on IRC, as it seems to be more annoying and divisive. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 12:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's fine if people want to express their opinion on their user page. However, how about we give opinions a chance instead of starting down the road to slogans. Next thing you know we'll have ] and ]s. —] <sup>]</sup> 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? ] (]) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| While I like the images as parody, I don't like them as a campaigning tool, that is people using them on userpages to show who they support. I don't like the idea of the Arbcom elections becoming associated with the adversarial, negative campaigning style of political elections (particularly American ones). There may be people running for the same position, but we aren't running against each other in the same way that politicians are. Whereas political elections are generally about ideology, our elections are more about experience, judgement and other qualifications - or at least they were. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the ]. ] (]) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Secret ballot, anyone? ;-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as disingenuous. {{blue|The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur}}: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, {{blue|I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that}} does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked ''in order'' to be able to call a real life opponent a "]", <s>in wikivoice</s> with a misattributed ] quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the ] {{tl|BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. ] ] 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to ''The Times'', so was not in wikivoice. ] (]) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. ] ] 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. ] (]) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - ] ] 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of ''The Times'' when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. ] (]) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We ''do'' ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per {{u|Liz}}; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. ] ] 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. ] (]) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding {{xt|articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment}}, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section ''before'' making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. ] (]) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| *'''Support'''. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as {{u|Hemiauchenia}}'s "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. {{u|Robert McClenon}} says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. ] ] 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. ] (]) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. ] ] 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] (]) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. ] (]) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit == | |||
| This page has (as of right now) the wording: | |||
| {{atopr | |||
| | result = Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. ] (]/]) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| At ], I was instructed by closer ] that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See ] through ]. This year the ] verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. ] ] 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| "''In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available).''" | |||
| :'''Oppose''' and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --] (]) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose for now''' It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --] 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : '''Oppose''' The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found ]. At that place it is very clear that {{tq|here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup}}, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that '''your ban was indefinite''', so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". ] ] 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose'''. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠]♠ ] 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Requesting info== | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = {{u|Steve Quinn}} is {{itrout|trouted}} for bringing this to AN. ] (]/]) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files: | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found . So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be. | |||
| I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: {{userlinks|Brian.S.W}}. However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---] (]) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Someone pointed out the inconsistency with ] and recent enforcement efforts, and I figured it was a simple matter of fixing this to refeer to the state of the actual fair use policy itself. But after a couple objections I was reverted because aparently this "unilateral policy change" had not been debated at ] itself. Pointing to miles of debates elsewhere and pointing out that ] and ] disagree with the wording on the page had no effect and they insist that this is not sufficient consensus to change such a central policy page and so forth... I was half way though writing a lengtgy sarcastic rant about how silly it is to insist that one our of 3 policy pages remain unchanged and "out of step" with the other two pending further disuccsion, all the while the two oher policy pages are the ones that are beeing actively enforced, but I though better of it and descided it may be more productive to see if anyone else have any ideas on how to resolve this without causing more drama. --] <span style="font-size:75%">]</span> 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *If anyone can tell me how these recent enforcements came about, please let me know on my talk page. I don't understand why fair use images used in the proper articles and the correct templates and rationales are suddenly being deleted either. - ]|] 13:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. ] ] 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Please Help Me! == | |||
| ] has threatened to "complain loudly across boards and mailing lists" about my "BS" with regard to ], on which I am purportedly "playing games" and "not operating in good faith", but like "a 2 year old". I would be happy to reverse these changes to a protected high-use template—which were the result of unanimous agreement on ]—on reasonable request, but threats do not a reasonable request make, and these threats have not been accompanied by any explanation of why the decision in the discussion on the talk page be wrong. I don't think threats and insults like this are appropriate. —]→] • 22:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from ] but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from ], so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through ] due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing ] (]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I blocked for seven days. Appropriate? -- ''']''' 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :{{confirmed}} to {{np|Bhairava7}}. --] (]) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that is excessive. The user appears to be a productive contributor, though this sort of behavior may or may not be common in interactions with others and is ironically fitting with respect to the sort of threat. —]→] • 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ] (]) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Alright; I've shortened it to fifty hours. Sorry, my judgment on block lengths in not-so-straightforward situations may be imperfect. -- ''']''' 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|Bhairava7}} / {{u|Aarav200}}, please contact ca{{@}}wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See ] for details. ] (]) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing ] (]) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ] (]) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. ] (]) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. ] (]) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{re|ToBeFree|Sdrqaz}},I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing ] (]) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. ] (]) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::(Note: I am also in - hopefully polite - disagreement with Centrx about Cquote). While I agree User:Stbalbach has gone a bit overboard, I don't think a block for his behaviour is warranted, especially since he wasn't warned. Besides, I see nothing in ] that allows a user to be blocked for a threat to ''complain''. Note well: complain... not sue, or physically attack. ] ] 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == BAG nomination == | |||
| :::Agh... I'll leave to you all to decide. You do have a point though, Mikk, but I don't want to tweak the block again. -- ''']''' 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are personal attack/assuming bad faith issues separate from any threats about complaining. Regarding complaints, he was threatening to raise all hell upon me over the matter. He had already stated in a previous comment that he would bring the matter up with other administrators if need be; the subsequent comment is above and beyond that, specifically in order to intimidate me into doing what he wanted (restore it or else). I think it is borderline whether this warranted a block, but it is unequivocally wrong behavior. —]→] • 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hi! I have nominated myself for ] membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the ]. Thanks! – ] <small>(])</small> 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree with you, Centrx, Stbalbach's behaviour was "unequivocally wrong", but blocking him for it is also unquestionably not in line with policy. WP:BLOCK allows blocks for those who enagage in "personal attacks which place users in danger" or engage in "''persistent'' personal attacks" . Stbalbach didn't place you in danger, nor did he persist in violating NPA after being warned. Ergo he should be unblocked. ] ] 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == I need help from an admin - Urgent == | |||
| :::::The blocking policy is to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages and contains specific examples for that purpose. These are personal attacks and disruption, conduct that is "inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia". A block does serve the purpose of preventing such infractions temporarily and discouraging them in the future. The question of whether a block is warranted is whether that same purpose could have been served as well or better by a simple warning. —]→] • 00:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Dear Misplaced Pages Team, | |||
| I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help. | |||
| ::::::Fair enough; but I still disagree with the block. Anyhow, I've said my piece - it's up to others to decide. ] ] 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Many thanks, | |||
| ::::::It isn't behaviour that merits a block. Neither you nor Tariq-7-day-block-abjotu appear to be displaying much sense of proportion. Stbalbach has contributed since 2004 without being blocked, including on controversial articles like ], so snide asides like "though this sort of behavior may or may not be common in interactions with others" are quite unnecessary, and more than likely entirely mistaken. They certainly are in my limited experience of the editor in question. Your own behaviour, making non-trivial edits to a protected template, and then ignoring the complaints from mere editors, is not such as to get any sympathy from me. Edit summaries like "Not appropriate for an encyclopedia as opposed to a children's television program" aren't best designed to avoid conflict either. There's a depressingly familiar air about the whole thing. Certainly no editor would have been blocked had the recipient of the comments complained of not been an admin, of that I am certain. ] ] 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Mohammed ] (]) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read ] prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --] (]) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :What's the issue? ] (]/]) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] probably needs blocking. ] (]) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Done}} ] (]/]) 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Relevant article: | |||
| :*{{al|An Orange from Jaffa}} | |||
| :OP possibly using multiple accounts: | |||
| :*{{checkUser|Mohamugha1}} | |||
| :*{{checkUser|MohammedAlmughanni}} | |||
| :] (]) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{noping|MohammedAlmughanni}} blocked as a sock. ] (]/]) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian == | |||
| :::::::''Tariq-7-day-block-abjotu'' hey, hey! not necessary! -- ''']''' 01:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :::::::I made no snide comments, I made the change after it had been brought up over the course of months by a dozen editors, in which time no one at all objected, and I reverted it back when a second editor requested it without being vicious. It is really quite that simple and requires none of the wild presumptions you are making. —]→] • 02:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. ] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --] (]) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == EncycloDeterminate unblocked == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved that: | |||
| ::::::::The one-week block of a prolific editor in good standing was appalling, however. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{ivmbox|1=Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of {{Userlinks|EncycloDeterminate}}, as it is no longer necessary.}} | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (] • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|EncycloDeterminate unblocked}}'''<!-- ] (]) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| == Permission request == | |||
| :::::::::Thanks; I get it. -- ''']''' 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|1=No. - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for ] editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you ] (]) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like we’ve got another @] impersonator here. ''If by some unlikely chance you are actually CFA, then you can make a request while logged in as CFA. Otherwise you will be blocked as before… nice try…'' ] ] 04:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| ::@] here is another CFA imposter for you. Cheers! ] ] 05:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I indeffed {{User|CFA (AWB)}}. ] (]) 05:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I can't believe they are so dumb they tried doing the same scam two nights in a row. The previous attempt was removed from this noticeboard but it had a link listing about 20 CFA-related imposter accounts. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Proposed community ban of Marginataen == | |||
| These two accounts are apparently operated by the same user. Dermo69 edits while the user and talk pages are redirected to Dermo which makes checking contributions more difficult and seems a little out of step with ]. I've noticed several of Dermo69's recent edits that have raised eyebrows, e.g. an undiscussed move of ] and insisting on the inclusion of unsourced material on ]. I've dropped him a note about editing under one account, but am not entirely sure of precedent / exact procedure on this. Thoughts? <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|status=Community ban imposed|1=This clearly fall sunder the {{tqq|except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours}} condition of ]. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :By the way, "dermo" means "shit" in Russian. Just in case. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 08:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{userlinks|Marginataen}} | |||
| *They appear to be Irish, so the username is probably just an unfortunate mishap. I've seen a lot of trouble on his talk, but I'd wait a few hours to see if he complies before blocking about the double account thing. - ]|] 13:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a ]), and two days after their last unblock, they were ], as ]. Well they've gone back to ]; their are a good sampler. Despite being ] that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have ] for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request. | |||
| They clearly have extreme ] problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which ] Manual of Style violations of ]. Furthermore, in the light of ] (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their ] of the spin-off article ] might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. ] (]) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] again == | |||
| :{{midsize|(Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.)}} <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Well, I will continue to post this here until someone decides to check the page out :-P I just need a quick answer: if the information about the artist's husband name and daughter is public (as in, already published in a reliable site, check ), can the information be reproduced in Misplaced Pages? As I am involved in the reverting process (I do think it is correct to include such information, as it has no birth date), I can't semi protect the page. And since I just gave him a 3RR warning (which looks pretty much like any of the warnings he has received this month), he cannot be blocked due 3RR (although he reverted the article 9 times in the last two days). Advice? And yes, I have already reported this to ], but I don't have any hopes of getting help from there as they are backlogged as no other noticeboard. Tried to get him to discuss, but he apparently is not interested. Reporting this to ] would not help because he is not interested in discussing. | |||
| :'''Support'''. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. ] 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::20 more edits after the AN notice. ] 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. ] (]) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. ] (]) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. ] (]) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Per proposal. --] (]) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. Don't waste the community's time. ♠]♠ ] 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment:''' It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: {{u|Tamborg}}, {{u|Bubfernr}}, and {{u|LatteDK}}. There may be others that I have missed. ] (]) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support.''' <s>I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...</s> Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently ] Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen ]: ''"Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates"''. And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to ] ] articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps ]. Hopeless. Block. — ] (]) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' - Gotta play by the rules. ] (]) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support'''. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. ] (]) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a ] problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. ] (]) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. ] (]) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == User:TWC DC1 == | |||
| Unluckily, with no real solution, I would leave the article war edit for a couple of weeks and then full protect it to force him sit down and discuss. And in case you haven't heard from my previous posts here, the article has been in edit war for 7 months by now under different users, with this ip this month. -- ] 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :Just because it's done on another site doesn't mean it's appropriate. The primary point is: does it serve the article? My belief is that it doesn't. Furthermore, it could encourage stalking - or at least gawking - by people who go to school with the girl, etc. That information may sorta be public now, but not as public as it would be on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| | result = Warned, then sockblocked. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I recommend issuing a warning to ], as their actions appear to be ]. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --] (]) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>On a side note, Jimbo has some very pointed statements about this on the talk page of the article about him. He makes general statements about this information being actually a form of original research. He's just another editor and his opinion doesn't have any more weight than any other, but I found this statement to be pretty insightful.</s>] 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)PS - I'm not an admin, so take my statements with a grain of salt:).] 03:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *There's nothing wrong with including the names. I'd be more careful with information about where they live. I have this information for the person I created an article on, but I am not including it on purpose because it could encourage stalkers and other troublemakers to seek them out. I'm actually surprised my source gave the information. If it's a large city like ], it's okay. I'd avoid the small villages. - ]|] 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == G7 request by a blocked account == | |||
| == ] backlog == | |||
| {{atop|1=G7'd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can an admin take a look at ]? It appears to be a "]" request for ]. -- ] (]) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — ] ] 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ]'s ] is excellent for spotting obvious copyvios, but if anybody can lend a hand, I need some help keeping the backlog cleared up. --] 02:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :Somehow the page went out of my watch list. Giving a hand now. -- ] 02:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Sapo.pt == | |||
| == Username with non-Latin characters == | |||
| *{{articlelinks|Sapo.pt}} | |||
| Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks ] (]) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} ] <sub>]</sub> 08:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proxy question == | |||
| Found this new user {{userlinks|ﾗｺﾘﾆﾋﾆﾗﾐ}} watching ]-related articles. While the name already is a violation of ], I've had to revert some vandalism () and spam (, ) from this user. Should anything be done with him? ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 03:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I recently enabled the and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., {{redacted}}). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? ] ] 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :(S)he should be warned, both about the vandalism and about the username. -- ''']''' 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at ]. ] (]/]) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::@] my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? ] ] 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. ] (]/]) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK thank you! ] ] 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|EvergreenFir}} Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last ''x'' days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software ''y''", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of {{slink|foundation:Legal:Wikimedia_IP_Information_Tool_Policy#Use_and_disclosure_of_IP_information}} is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. {{small|I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally.}} ] | ] 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. ] (]) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. ] (]) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Over on ] we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO | |||
| :::::::::Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated ] ] 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that ''IP Info says'' an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated ] ] 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Undeletion + XML export request == | |||
| :::Blocked per violation of ]. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 04:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of ], use ], and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Usernames containing non-Latin characters== | |||
| : I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. ] ] 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{Done}}; ]. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19 == | |||
| This user has been told several times to change his username, due to the non-Latin characters that exist in it. However, he has repeatedly refused to do so, noting in September 2006 that "Thank you for your concern, but this is my name and I have no intentions of changing it." About two weeks ago, ] apparently offered up a compromise (which he presumably accepted) whereby the user would register ] and just redirect that to his page. However, I'm unsure whether that solves the issue; the non-Latin characters still appear in the article histories, among other places. So, is that compromise sufficient, or must Yamaguchi change his/her username? -- ''']''' 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That seems to only be a redirect, no real user exists by "Yamaguchi". I'd say do a username change to the all-latin one, he can continue to sign with "先生" if he wishes. – ]] 03:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Have you considered explaining to him that he can edit his "signature" to his hearts content? I bet he's seen it on other people's posts. That might get him to change his name....just a thought] 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | result = Stray page deleted <small>(])</small> ] (]) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
| ::: Please be aware that I have had this account many months before any such Euro-centric policy was put in place. If it comes down to these type of threats despite my long service to Misplaced Pages, I will have no regrets leaving this project. 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps someone could take a look at ]? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- ] (]) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you {{u|The Bushranger}}. -- ] (]) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] closures == | |||
| ::::I don't understand why you have such an aversion to change usernames. You can change it to Yamaguchi, and still maintain your signature. -- ''']''' 03:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|2601AC47}} {{Pagelinks|Deb Matthews}} {{Pagelinks|Ministry of Education (Ontario)}} | |||
| ::::: I think this is a good example for why we may need to rethink this policy. ] 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 2 sections ] and ](MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions. | |||
| ::::::I see absolutely no reason a valid and long term contributor to[REDACTED] should be forced to comply with a policy enacted AFTER he came to wiki ... thats simply unfair. ]] <span style="font-size:130%; background:yellow; border:1px solid black;">☢</span> 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I have to agree with this. There is no reason to force a name change, at minimum this should allowed until after the single login process is complete to see if policy changes at that time. ] 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If people can now register meta-wiki accounts that are valid across all the WP projects and languages, how can en.wikipedia maintain this rule? ] 03:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Yamaguchi, | |||
| ::I'm a black girl in the ole' US of A, so please believe me when I say I understand the concept of Eurocentric bias. However, I don't think that's the case here. For one thing, no-one can read your non-latin additions - or at least I can't, I just see two little boxes. The second thing is that your signature could be totally non-latin, if you wished it (I've seen that, at least). I don't know what the policy is exactly, but I'm sure the admins could weigh in. Just please consider it - I hope you don't leave Misplaced Pages over this (or anything else).] 04:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Though the reason for the policy may be technical, the technical limitation itself represents a bias. It's one thing to ask new users to change their username, but longstanding users should not be required to do so. ] 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have discussed with the user on ]. The user refused to change the summaries. ] (]) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (edit conflict) We should probably consider deprecating this portion of policy, as it runs contrary to ] (SUL) and does not address the grandfathering of accounts registered prior to March 15, 2006 when this policy change was made. ] 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] is the perfect reason why the policy should exist. How the heck are we supposed to differentiate between two people with different Japanese characters? Forgive me (and my English, euro-centered thinking, honestly), but I have ''no'' Japanese experience, and honestly, I don't think I should need it, seeing as this is the English Misplaced Pages. -]<sup>]]</sup> 04:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Right. If we ignore the "bias" here, and the SUL issue, there ''is'' good reason for having this rule for the English Misplaced Pages (and for most Wikipedias). If I'm engaging in discussion with Patstuart, I'll just say his name, or maybe Pat. But with an all-Japanese, all-Korean, all-Arabic, etc. username, that's not so easy. It would be nice if some sort of transliteration could be associated with usernames under SUL to make things easier for those Wikipedias unlikely to have many users with keyboards that can handle non-Latin characters. -- ''']''' 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***There's a really easy and friendly solution to this; instead of asking for roman characters in the user's name and then telling them they can use non-roman in their signatures, why not the other way around? Ask users with non-roman usernames to use roman (or romanesque lol) signatures, for ease of communication with other editors. ] 04:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****That's not a bad idea (does SUL have single-signature?). -- ''']''' 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****Dammit, edit conflicted with Anchoress and he said close to what I was going to say: While I'd prefer the rule for convenience at least in its current form it is going to run afoul of the SUL when that's implemented. I strongly suggest we at least for now drop the policy and discuss a better one. Possibly we can add a policy encouraging such users to have signatures which include a transliteration of their usernames? ] 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****The idea of using roman-alphabet signatures when an editor has a non-roman-alphabet username works for talk pages and places where people sign their signature. It doesn't work when you are looking at a history page or recent changes, as those pages show the username, not what appears in the signature. ] 10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think people will be throwing hints at racism in a few minutes. ''This bit is about the English Misplaced Pages and not about any euro-centric biases'' or anything. I live in India, and I do not have any kind of Hindi/Urdu symbol in my username. Why? I understand it causes difficulties, to users and administrators; and that is the reason why we have the ] policy. We are here to make an encyclopedia, and not to fulfill our fantasies. It is a project where we don't derieve anything but self-satisfaction. Arguing that this policy did not exist when the user joined the project is lame and ludicrous. I honestly don't want this user to go, I think she's a fabulous user; but in no way I will accept this policy and possibly give an upper hand to vandals and problem users who will exploit this loophole to vandalise / troll a minute or more further. — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 11:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we are going to decide on the SUL issue, this should go to Meta. Best regards, — ]<span class="plainlinks"> </span> 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. ] (]/]) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ::Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? ] (]) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. ] (]/]) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I decline your request to withdraw. ] makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. ] (]) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. ] (]/]) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. ] (]) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately this is yet more characteristic behavior of Legend. While they make some ''really good and positive contributions'', they seem to only be here to edit the articles ''in their own image,'' and do not know how to manage consensus building, nor conflict aside from filing copious notice boards, lawyering with non-conventional arguments or just walking away from discussions. Again when editing in areas without contention, they are an asset, but the moment something is reverted, they seem to have little skills with resolving it properly. (Mobile at the moment, but diffs are widely available). ] ] 06:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :So much for cooperation... <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. ] (]/]) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::May be I should have more specifically mentioned ] (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. ] (]/]) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. ] (]) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. ] (]) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of ] . - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said ] to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". ] (]/]) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. ] (]) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{outdent|1}} Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. ] (]/]) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. ] (]) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? ] (]) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays? == | |||
| ] has been backlogged for over 48 hours now, and it has 16 items now (so the number is growing). --] 11:27, 30 November 2006 (]]]) | |||
| For example, ]. In theory I think this could be deleted via ] for violating ]. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day? | |||
| == Trial in DYK == | |||
| Hmm, actually this is an article about a ] member, not a ] member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –] <small>(])</small> 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| If any admins have fancied updating the ] section of the Main Page but haven't been able to find the full 30+ mins to go through the entire procedure, a trial is currently being carried out to make the job of updating a bit easier. Rather than browsing through the list of suggestions and evaluating each one individually, the template is now being prepared beforehand at ]. Just paste the new template over the last when updating is required, make sure the image is protected, and add the talk page notices. ] <sup>]</sup>⁄<sub>]</sub> <small>• 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * No, it doesn't. If it ''was'' (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles ''should'' be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. ] 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :If this system is implemented, there should be strict control over ]. There is a lot of trash here which the updaters decide not to promote in each individual case. Grammatical mistakes, typos and "4th century" should be rooted out. It would be embarrassing to see them on Main Page. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 12:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:It might fall under ]. ] (]/]) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Still, a pretty good idea. Picking the items before hand cuts down a lot on the time you spend updating. In fact I was wondering about such a system myself. -- ] 12:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per ] ¶ A2, {{tqq|Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::As long as the article is acceptable, this is what ] is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Given that they were specifically when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of ] at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. ] ] 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::In ''that'' case, it should probably be nuked. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ] (]) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Archive bots == | |||
| == Unfair and biased deletion notice== | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. ] (]/]) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{main|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality. == | |||
| Gang, I seriously am sorry for putting this on the noticeboard, but I did not see any other place for it. I really have to say that this deletion notice is turning into what appears to be a heavily biased, unfair group of people who want this article deleted simply becuase they dont like it. The entire nomination was started by someone who was upset that ] had been undeleted and stated that "this had prompted him" to nominte the "parent article" for deletion . The nominator and voters to date are saying "its original research", "its not sourced", "it doesnt belong on Misplaced Pages". The article could use a cleanup, BUT- it is ''extremely'' well referenced and has been written and worked on for over a year. It contains very valid sources and references to live action productions and other estalished, referenced material. I simply do not understand why this many people would come out of the woodwork ''this quickly'' (I count at least 7 or 8 in the past hour) to try thier damnest to delete this article. SO- what am I asking? '''If it is possible'''- lets put a stop to this VfD. The comments on the page are biased and unfair and are dismissing the work and research into this article. I would say, what for deletion review, bu the same people will visit that page and express thier views there as well. '''This is a well referenced article that doesnt deserve to simply be wiped off Misplaced Pages'''. Someone put a stop to this, before its too late. Thank you. -] 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per ] (and, indeed, ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * I see the problem. This appears to be a debate about the reliability of the sources. At first glance I can't see anything wrong with them, so if I remember I'll take a further look (MacGyverMagic - too lazy to login) = ] 12:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As observed , Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated.<span id="Masem:1737504211892:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| **I would delete this post if I weren't the AFD nominator Husnock is complaining about, as AN is really, really not the place for such a discussion. There is an AFD on the article, and discussions should take place there. Please don't spam other boards because you dislike the way an AFD seems to be going. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 13:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ***EC, agree with Proto. Settle it at AfD. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This has nothing to do with spamming boards. I looked for an appropriate board to post this at but couldn't find one. Where does one go when there appears to be an unfair VfD in progress? And this does seems to be an unfair VfD based on conflicting motivations, especially with the admission that the undeletion of the Warrant Officer rank article is the primary reason that its parent article was nominated for deletion. I am asking admins look into this, since te group voting appears to be completely dismissing the sources of the article and I'm trying to stop the deletion of a heavily researched and well referenced article. -] 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against.<span id="Masem:1737506377400:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :So everyone except you is wrong and has a hidden, possibly evil, agenda? :) In all seriousness, the AFD (nb, not VFD) really is the place for these discussions. If the closing administrator believes any nominations or AFD contributions are in bad faith, or biased, they can - and do - discount those peoples' arguments. The process to discuss an AFD if you believe there were procedural errors ''after it has run its course'' is ]. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 13:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. ] (]) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Nope, I'm wrong alot too. I'm just saying there should be ''some'' path for those who feel an article has been unfairly nominated. I mean, when you get right down it, whats to stop a group of college kids in a dorm deleting half the articles on Misplaced Pages as a prank one Saturday night? I recall ] was almost nominated for deletion once. This article will probably be killed, sadly, but it deserves better. I am going to try and rebuild it into a much better article. A cleanup notice would have been nicer that a deletion tag, especially with the work that has gone into this article. -] 13:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations}} Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. ] (]/]) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ] for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. ] ] 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
Latest revision as of 06:20, 22 January 2025
Notices of interest to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion| 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) | |||||||||
| 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 | 1166 | 1167 |
| 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 | 1176 | 1177 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 18 | 20 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 95 | 95 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 51 sockpuppet investigations
- 14 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 4 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 1 requests for RD1 redaction
- 117 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 20 requested closures
- 30 requests for unblock
- 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 21 Copyright problems
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
NO CONSENSUS This has been open for more than a month, much longer than most ban appeals, and it is basically deadlocked, both in numbers and valid arguments. This is therefore closed as not having consensus, which defaults to the block remaining in place. Beeblebrox 21:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:
I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.
However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:
That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.
- Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like
On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.
, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
I will never use multiple accounts anymore
and that he wants tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
- But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning,
but please note that this is a discussion, not a straight vote, so just saying "support" doesn't tell us much.It has been pointed out to that they did do that, I guess the break threw me off. Beeblebrox 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Moscow Connection: Your comments are as valid as anyone else's, if you explain your reasoning,
- Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I can't repeat what Beaniefan11 say enough: "Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
." This should assuage any doubt in the mind of the reviewing administrator. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose Claims of "It's been seven years!" fall on deaf ears when you find out he's been socking all along and as recently as a year ago. Fram and PMC have good points as well. Show some restraint and understanding of your block and WP:SO is yours. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support with a little WP:ROPE and conditions suggested by Joseph2302. Yeah, given the timeframe, I'd say having to submit their creations to AFC for the time being is a sufficient middle way for the yes and no camps. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Large-scale sockpuppetry is very harmful, and was continuing for years after the ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Kansascitt1225 ban appeal
Appeal successful. There were some murmurings requesting a topic ban from Kansas, but nothing approaching consensus. Of course, Kansascitt1225 would be well-advised to be careful not to go back to the behaviors that led to a block in the first place. But in the meantime, welcome back. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:
(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
References
- https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
- (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)- Response from KC:
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Yes I can write in paragraphs and list different ideas in separate paragraphs instead of a giant run on sentence.
I wasn’t trying to right great wrongs but noticed the contrast of the definition of suburban on Misplaced Pages and these communities being described as suburban (meanwhile some of these suburbs verifiably having lower residential to job ratio than the city and also a higher overall population density with some suburbs gaining population during the day due to commuters coming into them). This is essentially why on my case page It says I feel as tho something had to be “fixed”. I thought my edits were being removed simply because people didn’t like this place or some of its past so I felt as tho I was simply being purposefully misled which caused me to not follow proper civility.
I just wanted to clarify that these places weren’t only residential and were major employment areas that they sometimes have a lower percentage of single family homes. This to me was always the opposite of what suburban meant, atleast what I learned during grade school and what it says on Misplaced Pages. That’s where the confusion came from. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Six years is a long time, and they have shown growth. I do not think what is actually happening here is righting great wrongs, instead they assumed bad faith and things went downhill from there. I think their concerns of
Jackson county being THE central county of the metropolitan area
(which Misplaced Pages deems urban)when you can see in the census reference here there are actually 6 central counties
(which Misplaced Pages deems suburban) is reasonable. I researched it, but found the concerns are inconsistent with urban area page which provides the definition thatAn urban area is a human settlement with a high population density and an infrastructure of built environment. This is the core of a metropolitan statistical area in the United States, if it contains a population of more than 50,000.
An urban area is the most urban area compared to its surroundings, even though its surroundings are quite dense. I hope this helps. Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- I add that their concerns that suburban designation misleads people seem to have merit. It is not the suburban designation that misleads people though, but the definition of suburban itself on the suburban article seems to be misleading. I know this is not a place to discuss content, but discuss conduct. But some insight into content can help resolve problems. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Tulsi (unblock request)
User unblocked. arcticocean ■ 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Tulsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Blocked (indef) on 3 April 2024 (9 months ago) by Rosguill during an AN thread (archived thread) for undisclosed paid editing
- Subsequent unblock request was also considered at AN before being declined (archived thread)
Tulsi has now submitted an unblock request which I am copying:
Dear Sysops,
I sincerely apologize for my past actions, which were problematic and deceptive. I fully understand the concerns raised, and I deeply regret my involvement. On April 3, 2024, my account was blocked by Rosguill in relation to undisclosed paid editing associated with the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361 § DIVINE and Tulsi: COI/UPE/quid-pro-quo editing, association with threats and harassment. However, I want to clarify that my involvement in these matters was minimal, with only minor interactions in the past. I have never written articles for payment, and I do not support paid editing.
The issues in question occurred in 2020 or 2021, prior to the block. At that time, I admitted my conflict of interest (COI) and disclosed it on the relevant article talk pages. Following discussions, my global and local rights were removed, but the block was not enforced until two years later. Many of the articles in question were deleted, so I did not find it necessary to disclose anything further. Moving forward, I have no intention of creating or editing COI-related articles. However, if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article, I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review, as I did with the article Talk:Ghero.
While I respect Rosguill’s decision to impose a block after the two-year gap, I understand that a block serves to prevent disruption rather than punish. I have learned valuable lessons from this experience, and my contributions over the past two years reflect this growth. In this time, I have created over 80 articles, all without any undisclosed paid editing or COI involvement. Additionally, I have contributed to patrolling, as seen in the Twinkle and Draftify logs, and I have reported several violations on WP:UAA.
I acknowledge that I was not fully familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies in the past, but I have since taken the time to understand them better. I have been an active and committed user since October 2014, with significant contributions across various Wikimedia projects. I have also served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias.
I am requesting an unblock because I am fully committed to abiding by all the established policies moving forward, and I am eager to contribute here in a constructive manner. Please kindly allow me a second chance.
Thank you for your consideration. I humbly request your reconsideration and the restoration of the editing privileges on my account on English Misplaced Pages.
Sincerely,
Having had discussions with the blocking admin, we would like to seek community comments on the unblock request.
Tulsi was blocked after UPE allegations that had been outstanding for around 2 years essentially caught up with them. They have now attested to having never edited for pay, which was the question they originally failed to answer twice (first thread, second thread), leading to the block. In the unblock request, they give a sincere undertaking not to engage in any more UPE.
They have created several dozen articles about Nepalese politicians but these seem to be innocuous. I have identified only a handful of articles where Tulsi could have edited for pay. Given the amount of other contributions Tulsi has made, it would be appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt. arcticocean ■ 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot find the link for "A related meta-wiki discussion". killer bee 15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've deleted those words. I had decided not to include them in my post, but accidentally left them in. For interest, the discussion was this one: m:Requests for comment/Tulsi advanced permissions and UPE. arcticocean ■ 15:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per WP:SO. I will AGF that Tulsi will keep his promise not to engage in any COI editing going forward. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question: We are all volunteers here, so the applicant's comment
if I am ever in a situation where I am required to contribute to such an article
(emphasis mine) is worrisome within the context of UPE/COI. Could they, or someone else for that matter, provide some clarification? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)- I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to the example provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states
I will ensure full disclosure on the article talk page and submit it for review
(emphasis added). That promise is enough for me. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I assume "required" is just poor phrasing and refers to circumstances similar to the example provided in the same sentence you quote. In any event, the second part of the sentence states
- Support, we should generally give a second chance to users who have greatly and fundamentally changed in several months. Given that the user acknowledged the block and promised not to engage in undisclosed paid editing, not to mention that the user is trusted elsewhere, I see no reason to oppose. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I believe in their ability to address any concern in the future, given that they served as a sysop on Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki, MediaWiki, and the Maithili and Nepali Wikipedias. Kenneth Kho (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support A second chance promises that Tulsi will not do highly undisclosed paid editing. I may partially support a topic ban on Nepalese politics against Tulsi. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support Make the most of the second chance Buffs (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I had already been kind of watcxhing the discussion on their talk page over the last few days, and agree with an SO unblock. Beeblebrox 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Request for Administrator Review of Repeatedly Declined Draft: Ario Nahavandi
Spam, spam, glorious spam. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Administrators,
I am writing to request your assistance regarding my draft, Draft:Ario Nahavandi, which has been repeatedly declined over the past year despite my adherence to Misplaced Pages’s guidelines.
Over the course of several months, I have worked diligently to gather reliable, published, and independent sources, including magazine articles and other credible publications, that meet Misplaced Pages’s notability criteria. My most recent submission was declined in less than an hour—a timeframe that strongly suggests it was not even reviewed carefully or thoroughly.
This is particularly frustrating as I see numerous approved articles on Misplaced Pages that cite sources far less reliable or even completely broken. In contrast, my article contains verifiable references that adhere strictly to Misplaced Pages’s policies. This inconsistency feels unfair and raises concerns about bias in the review process.
I have followed all guidelines in good faith and cannot accept decisions that appear to be based on personal opinion rather than policy. It feels as though my article is being subjected to an unjust standard, especially when compared to articles that seem to bypass scrutiny. I genuinely wonder if this process is influenced by factors beyond content quality, as I have no means to “pay” for an article to be published, unlike some others.
I kindly request that an administrator reviews my draft with impartiality and provides clear, actionable feedback. Otherwise, I am truly exhausted by the repeated rejections and dismissals with no valid reasoning.
To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:
• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/
• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com
• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com
Thank you for your time and consideration xx
Lanak20 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Administrators cannot override draft declines, and in fact the administrator toolset cannot be used to force content decisions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 23:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- So who can I turn to for help? If administrators cannot assist in overriding the draft declines, to whom can I escalate this issue? I am deeply concerned that my article has been repeatedly declined without proper consideration of the sources I’ve provided. These sources are reliable, published, and fully comply with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, yet they continue to be dismissed without even being properly reviewed.
- It’s becoming clear that the rejection process isn’t being carried out fairly. I can’t help but feel that my article is being judged based on factors other than content quality, especially when I see articles approved with far less solid references.
- I understand that the review process is based on policy, but when it seems clear that my draft isn’t being given the attention it deserves, I need to know where I can seek help to ensure fairness.
- I kindly ask for your guidance—if administrators cannot intervene, who can I turn to for proper support in getting this article reviewed fairly?
- Thank you for your time. Lanak20 (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:TEA. This is where you appeal problems with submissions of drafts. You should read the WP:NPEOPLE and WP:BLP carefully. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lanak20: I actually just went over your sources. They're all malformed at best and unusable at worst. What is your connexion to Nahavandi? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 00:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked the OP as a spam-advertising-only account. I should add that it's pretty obvious they've used other accounts to promote this person, I believe most recently as of last October.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Edit Restriction Appeal
Unanimous consent after 36 hours to lift the restriction. Primefac (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A bit over a year ago, with near unanimous support, I appealed a TBAN from GENSEX - receiving in its place the following sanctions 1RR restriction in both the GENSEX and AMPOL topics; is limited to 0RR on articles for organizations/activists who are affiliated with anti-transgender activism or gender-critical feminism, broadly construed; and has a PBAN from Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull.
Previous discussions are linked there. I am now requesting that my restrictions be dropped entirely because I have grown considerably as an editor, both since my initial TBAN when I'd just turned 19 and since the appeal.
I translated Transgender history in Brazil (having originally wrote it on eswiki during my TBAN) and made it my first GA. I uploaded multiple colorized photographs of transgender historical figures to commons I improved LGBTQ rights in New York and wrote articles for famous trans activists Cecilia Gentili and Carol Riddell. I also cleared up serious BLP violations at Aimee Knight and rewrote the article. I also helped expand Trans Kids Deserve Better and wrote Bayswater Support Group. I improved Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy and conversion therapy. I improved gender dysphoria in children. I rewrote and considerably expanded WPATH as well as Gender Identity Development Service. I expanded the article on the Cass Review. I wrote the article on the 1970 semi-governmental report Evaluation of Transsexual Surgery. I expanded the articles on Stephen B. Levine and Kenneth Zucker. I rewrote Detransition to follow WP:MEDRS and use systematic reviews instead of primary studies. Most proudly, I wrote Transgender health care misinformation and took it to GA - this is particularly relevant as a key part of the original TBAN discussion was whether my commitment to removing misinformation from Misplaced Pages was a case of either WP:RGW or following WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.
I believe the restrictions impair my ability to edit productively. I generally edit with 1RR regardless of sanctions. With 0RR, as Red-tailed hawk noted at my previous appeal "they can wind up restricting the sorts of partial reverts that are often a healthy part of the ordinary editing process." With 0RR, I am unable to engage in the BRD cycle properly and always second-guessing whether a partial edit to a recent edit counts as a revert or not. It also prevents me reverting drive-by SPA/IP povpushing. I don't plan to ever edit KJK's article again, but I believe that my record of neutral constructive editing shows the PBAN is no longer preventative or necessary. In the highly unlikely event I ever see a reason to edit it in future, I know my edits would be subject to heightened scrutiny which I'd welcome.
I appreciate your consideration. My best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Based on YFNS's activity since the original tban, I don't see any reason to believe that restrictions are necessary going forward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Welcome back comrade. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support based on their editing activity between TBAN and last year, as well as between the sanctions and now. Good work, and a great example of how this restorative process is supposed to work. May you inspire other misguided people to a path of restoration. TiggerJay (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snow Support Kenneth Kho (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support. To me YNFS comes across as a very responsible editor and I believe these restrictions are no longer warranted. HenrikHolen (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I remember the original ban happening due in large part to canvassing on twitter, the fact that any restrictions remained in place thereafter strikes me as a deep miscarriage of justice. Snokalok (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Query Does your reference to BRD mean that you undertake to follow it in the future? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Enthusiastic support YFNS is a perfect model of an editor who is an asset to Misplaced Pages. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support A well worded appeal, worth giving another chance. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is a convincing and sincere appeal. Cullen328 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, Welcome. ~🌀 Ampil 02:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as they have convincingly demonstrated change. TarnishedPath 02:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I supported and still support the original restrictions, and the later now appealed restrictions. I think YFNS's case has shown that an editor can come back from the brink successfully and am happy that happened. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Copyvio Problem
Hey all, I believe that these three diff should be redacted as copy vio's, thanks. There are several sentences which are directly lifted from the sources. Some one more experienced should likely have a look through the revision I restored as well. I didn't spot anything, but I may have missed something.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't think that @YatesTucker00090 is really at any fault here.
- Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Kingsmasher678 please see {{copyvio-revdel}} on how to tag copyvios for attention. Nthep (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Lardlegwarmers block appeal
Essentially unanimous consensus to not unblock. RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Lardlegwarmers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I blocked Lardlegwarmers yesterday for one week for a violation of their community topic ban from COVID-19. This was about this edit, although I subsequently noticed this one as well. LLW has asked me to copy their appeal here. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement from Lardlegwarmers
I have only been very active editing Misplaced Pages for about one month, even though my account is older. I was blocked for pushing a minority POV in the talk page for Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory, which I understand. For context, this issue wouldn't have even come up at ANI except that there was this very old account making borderline uncivil comments constantly, and I took them to ANI myself and it boomeranged. One thing that I learned from that experience is that Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement, and that I am probably not going to be the one to fix it. Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed; my edits were in good faith and I was really just attempting to talk it out with the other editors who did not agree with me. But I understand that the norm in this space is to walk away if there isn't any uptake of my ideas or take it to dispute resolution instead of continuing to try to convince people. The current ban is for making a comment on an AE thread, not a Covid-19 article. I was on the page for a totally unrelated reason and noticed that a user I recognized from the Covid thread was being discussed. My comment was mostly about user behavior and reflecting on the underlying dispute itself, not Covid-19. Also, on my user page I quoted Larry Sanger discussing his view on Misplaced Pages's approach to Covid-19 , which I'd assumed was permitted because it's my own user page and it's really a comment about the state of Misplaced Pages as a whole. The admin who blocked me, @Tamzin, blanked it from my user page. If the community won't let me keep that quote on my user page, then fine, we'll leave it removed, but I wish they would have just asked me to remove it and described why instead of editing my user page. A block for this stuff seems harsh. Thanks.
References
Statement from Tamzin
Excerpting my comment on their talkpage:-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 03:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Usually we only warn someone on their first topic ban violation. However, in your case, the fact that both violations occurred within hours of the ban being imposed, and that they were belligerent rants treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground, made me judge that a short block would more clearly communicate just how far you are from what is considered acceptable conduct. Even if you didn't understand that the ban applied outside articles, you should have understood that the community found your editing about COVID disruptive, which should have been reason enough to not make those edits.
Discussion among uninvolved editors
- This is clearly a topic ban violation - and it came less than a day after it was imposed. Even if assuming in good faith that they didn't know it was a topic ban violation, their unblock request shows not only that they don't understand what they did wrong, but they attempt to justify it with statements such as
Anyways, in my defense, I didn't learn until later that my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
which is borderline a personal attack (veiled insult that others weren't being grownups);which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
which is confirming they still don't understand why they were topic banned nor why they were blocked for violating it; and quoting Larry Sanger's fringe theory promoting comments on their userpage after their topic ban. To summarize, I have no confidence that the user understands what they did wrong, and I would go so far as to say the user attempting to skirt the edges of their topic ban and supporting another user trying to promote fringe theories on Misplaced Pages merits an indefinite community ban. TLDR: Oppose unblock and ultimately would support indefinite ban due to the flagrant violation, lack of understanding, and no belief that after the 7 days is up they will not go straight back to trying to right what they percieve as a great wrong. I won't be the one to propose that, however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - I don't see how an unblock is possible when Lardlegwarmers clearly still doesn't understand what a broadly construed topic ban means. To be clear, there's no need to ask the "community" whether you can keep your topic ban violation. The only hope for you to be able to obey it is if you are able to decide yourself, especially after you've been told by an admin. While we do try to educate instead of just blocking, the "community" isn't here to help you understand the limits of your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
banblock to indefinite at this time. While I'm not hopeful Lardlegwarmers is going to be able to obey it given what they've said, I think it's fine to give them rope after thebanblock expires and apply normal escalating blocks. Since we're already here, perhaps this will somehow help them understand that yes the community requires you to apply it broadly on anything to do with COVID-19 throughout Misplaced Pages. They should consider this very short rope though and notably the next time they feel they need to ask the community whether they're violating their topic ban when they are, it might be the last time. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Sorry mixed up ban and block above twice, now fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Should clarify that despite what I said above, I'd weakly oppose extending the topic
- Oppose unblock as the user looks to have no intention of following Misplaced Pages guidelines with their request. It is only a week and will give a change to think about how to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. It truly takes some chutzpah to cite a Signpost piece authored by the admin who blocked you to support the proposition that you're being railroaded. Weak support for an indef because that's what Lardlegwarmers seems to be speedrunning. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. The topic ban was on the topic of COVID-19, broadly construed, not the topic of COVID-19 directly in articlespace. And the topic ban was violated, not just within less than a day, but within three hours of it being imposed. On top of that the unblock request could be a case study for WP:NOTTHEM. I won't call for an indef yet, but when the block expires Lardlegwarmers should bear in mind that any further violations of the topic ban will be their last. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- No unblock - Basically per Lardlegwarmers: they don't appear to understand why they've been blocked. An indefinite block seems very likely in this editor's future and we certainly should consider cutting out the middle-man and just skipping to it, but I'd like to give them at least some chance here to understand why they were blocked. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock - While I usually support giving editors WP:ROPE to demonstrate improvement, this case warrants a longer wait. The user acknowledges pushing a minority POV and failing to disengage per WP:DISPUTE norms, but their justification suggests a lack of understanding or acceptance of policies like WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NOTHERE. Their off-topic comment in an AE thread, despite knowing the sensitivity of such spaces, and the policy-violating content on their user page, further reflect ongoing disruption. I recommend they take time to reflect and gain a better grasp of Misplaced Pages's collaborative culture before requesting an unblock again. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. I agree that absent change from this user an indefinite block is likely. For their benefit, if you're the subject of a topic ban, broadly construed, about COVID-19, you need to be editing in an entirely different topic area. Think of something that you're interested in--television shows, football, English gardens, science fiction books? Take a week and think on it. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock. What is there left to say? This conduct feels like appellant's purpose is use Misplaced Pages as a battleground and to soapbox their views rather than to build the encyclopedia-- to remake Misplaced Pages as they think it should be. My feeling is that a week won't be nearly enough. The railroad comment is appallingly full of not understanding that their conduct is not acceptable in a collaborative project. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whilst I don't believe user will be able to change their approach, I feel an indef would be premature for now. We should give them a chance to mend their ways. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- PS: What Tamzin said in her statement above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- An account that exists only to push a particular POV across several articles is topic banned, violates that topic ban immediately, and posts a battlegroundy unblock request that thoroughly misses the point. Whoever closes this should be considering indef, not an unblock. — Rhododendrites \\ 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock this specific response
Misplaced Pages's culture sort of revolves around social dynamics and politics, which can overshadow fairness and consistency in rule enforcement
is indicative of their viewpoints and why they're not ready to contribute. They continue,my attempt to reason things out like grownups was not allowed
. These demonstrate that they still do not get it, and rather project their self-perspective is that they are actually a victim of people who are abusing the rules against them. . I proffer that this is going to be a consistent problem until they acknowledge that they were violating policy. Zero indication that they know how to positively contribute, just perhaps a vague inference that they'll avoid getting in trouble -- because -- we'll I'm not entirely sure they've communicated what they will do differently, but rather simply say thata block for this stuff seems harsh.
TiggerJay (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Notwithstanding the harsh situation I presented above, to be clear I oppose indef for now. A new user should have the opportunity to overcome early (while significant) setbacks, which is what TBANs are designed to encourage. I am encouraged by things like YFNS corrective behavior in a prior AN discussion, and can only be hopeful and AGF that might apply to LLW here. We need more passionate, subject matter experts, as contributors to this project, but they absolutely must contribute positively and following established PGs. TiggerJay (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock and support an indef. I am pretty confident in saying that this is where we will be heading after this block ends. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, clear violations of the topic ban. Don't oppose indef, but I'd like to at least give him the chance to figure out exactly what we expect going forward. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support block, oppose unblock, oppose indef - this is a topic-banned newbie's first violation, in the heat of the moment after the restriction was imposed. Tamzin's block was the appropriate response. The unblock request is wholly inadequate, but jumping straight to indef for this sort of violation is a pretty extreme overreach. If they go back to violating their sanction after this block expires, then let's talk community ban, but they should be given the opportunity to edit constructively while respecting the restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 16:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef...however... I am sympathetic to their point of view and their general "right" (we don't really have rights here on WP) to post their opinion on a subject, even one as contentious as COVID-19. I think the blanking of the user page is a step too far. We shouldn't be in the business of deleting negative opinions about Misplaced Pages; while the statement was in reference to COVID-19, it doesn't mention it within the claim and is more a critique of Misplaced Pages at large and mass media than its relation to COVID. I would let the statement on their user page stand/restore it. Larry Sanger's statement is not a fringe theory, it is a reasonable opinion. There were loads of statements/claims about COVID/its origin/mandates/treatment/vaccines that, despite their widespread implementations and presentation as "the science", later turned out to be misleading or untested conjecture (examples: no studies on masking effectiveness with a large population vs the coronavirus, 6 foot spacing, lying to the American public about wearing masks because health care professionals needed them more, lab leak theory, military connections to the Wuhan Institute, US funding of WI, etc). HOWEVER, civil discourse is essential. That means that discussions about COVID were fraught with battlegrounds and bludgeoning. As such, we have additional restrictions for COVID discussions and other contentious topics and LLW needs to follow them. LLW did not do so and has shown a consistent flaunting of these restrictions and a weeklong block is a reasonable start. In summary, the quote isn't unreasonable to leave on their user page (give them that latitude), but a weeklong block for the other behavior should stand. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The boundary is WP:TBAN. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not fighting the removal per se. Just wondering where the boundaries are and if it's wise to have such a boundary. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Buffs: In the realm of hypothetical I would presume that if that quote had been on LLW user page for a long time, in a sea of content, pre-existing AN, then it might even still be up today. However, on the other hand, to post that after the TBAN was imposed is nothing other than what can be seen as abject defiance to the ban. But beyond that, it simply violates plain language of the ban, as it applies to
all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic
, so I proffer that Tamzin is clearly in the right here. To your charged statement about if you were to post the same thing to your user page, prior to your statement here and presuming you were not under a TBAN, it would not be questioned one iota. However, as a response to this discussion, it could be construed (but not technically violating) the principles of WP:PROXYING and I would caution against it. Moreover, you reinstating it on LLW talk page would be a far closer in the proximity of violating PROXYING. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- The fact that the comment only came after the topic ban is key here. I'm fairly sure I've seen several cases where there's something on an editor's user page which is covered by a topic ban but which no one has said or done anything about because it was there from before the topic ban. In fact I'm fairly sure I even remember a case where someone asked specifically if they could modify or remove something on their user page which related to their talk page which was technically under the topic ban (probably gensex). I think this was allowed especially since it related to their personal life rather than some comment on something, although they were told just this once is best. There might have even been a case where an editor wanted to do some more editing or formatting of something under their topic ban and was either denied or told only this once. IIRC, there was also an editor who was happy to be able to finally change someone on their userpage covered by their topic ban once it was lifted. A topic ban is a topic ban. I'd note that if someone makes an extremely constructive edit to an article that is not covered by WP:BANEX we still treat this as a topic ban violation, although it's something much more beneficial for the project than an editor being able to repost random ramblings about Misplaced Pages they want to share. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you posted it to your userpage, it would be fine (although not that constructive), because you are not topic-banned from COVID. If you posted it to their userpage, that would be WP:PROXYING for a banned editor, since I'd struggle to believe you have an independent reason to think that particular quote belongs on that particular page. If you really want to fight the removal from the userpage, feel free to create a subsection here, but I stand by the removal. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's some pretty big overlap there in criticism of Fauci and how it is handled on Misplaced Pages. Again, I don't feel THAT is a significant violation of COVID editing restrictions (beyond the fact that they did it despite such an editing restriction). Anyone can completely skip over it if they wish. @Tamzin: playing devil's advocate for a moment, what if I published the same thing on my user page? Would it be ok? Would it be ok if I posted it on LLW's user page (as long as LLW was ok with it, of course)? I realize we're getting in the weeds of a "what-if..." but if so, what's the substantive difference between me putting it on a user page and LLW doing the same? Buffs (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- They added two comments to their userpage. Both were critical of Misplaced Pages. One was also critical of Anthony Fauci and other aspects of the US government's COVID response. I removed the latter. It doesn't matter whether Sanger's opinion is fringe or not; what matters is that he was talking about COVID. I would be quite the hypocrite to remove something from someone's userpage just for criticizing Misplaced Pages, as I have a fair bit of that on my own userpage. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, oppose indef - The topic ban violation was clear cut. Let's hope Lardlegwarmers will read a bit about how to avoid topic ban violations, or else indef block is not too far for them. Lorstaking (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock, extend block indefinitely - Lardle should try to demonstrate good behavior on another wiki for six months before asking for a SO. Let's hope that this user should handle contentious topics carefully in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock but no reason to indef, a block has already been imposed. If the user continues to violate the TBAN, than a longer block might be warranted. JayCubby 02:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Comments from involved editors
- Going to open a new subsection here since I've made comments to Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory two weeks ago. I wish I could say I was surprised that this ended in tears but that would be untrue (though I did have some hopes the comment a month ago indicating they were aware pro-fringe POV-pushing was sactionable was a signal they were intending to modify their behaviour). As bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez points out, making thinly veiled attacks is not exactly the type of thing looked favourably upon in an unblock request. Nor is making polemical statements on one's user page, whether within the scope of the ban or not, likely to convince the community of one's inclination and ability to be a productive editor. Lardlegwarmers, if you do really want to return to editing, especially if you want to appeal your topic ban in 6 months or a year, I would strongly advise reading Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks and following the advice there, especially WP:NOTTHEM. Complaining about Hob's conduct won't help you here, because the block (and it's a rather short one) and ban are about you, not Hob. Given your comment that
apparently two wrongs make a right
, I had hoped that you were already also considering your own behaviour, but I would like to make it very clear: taking the role of one of the "wrongs" to address someone else's "borderline uncivil" behaviour is not itself considered acceptable behaviour. Whether Hob crosses the line is on them, but what you do is entirely on you. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC) - As I was involved in the discussion to topic ban LLW I think I count as an involved editor. With that said I would discourage an early lifting of this block, which seems appropriate considering that LLW's response to the topic ban was to immediately violate the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, perhaps LLW wasn't aware of this, but people who aren't uninvolved administrators aren't generally supposed to put comments into the "results" section of an AE filing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was there.. Three thousand ye-- No. More like one, two days ago. I seriously believe Lard Leg Warmers is one of two situations: 1: WP:CIR and unable to understand the concepts of medical science as if they were a Facebook mother invested in "essential oils" and "holistic medicine" rather than trusting medical and scientific experts; 2: WP:NOTHERE and simply f
**king with us for no good reason and leading us around, and around, and around, and around, and around the bend because they get a rise out of it. Either way, my advice: don't get led around the bend, advise indef block for either WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE. BarntToust 16:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- BarntToust, those kinds of personal assumptions about their character are unnecessary to this discussion. Instead of speculation on who they are elsewhere, let's just focus on their behavior on Misplaced Pages. Liz 06:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Lardlegwarmers' statement clearly shows that they have learned little from the sanction. They should demonstrate such before there is any lifting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Usage of 'Notable people' vis-a-vis 'Notable person' in section headers
This is not an administrative issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the course of editing numerous articles, I have come across the header featuring 'notable people' when there is only one person and have therefore modified the grammar.
I recently had another editor come behind me and revert one such edit on the grounds that things have always been done this way, regardless of the number of notables for a given locale, which makes little sense to me. Is this really policy? Hushpuckena (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems like a question for WP:MOS, not WP:AN as it doesn't involve administrator actions. AN isn't a general Help forum for questions about editing. You could even try asking at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Liz 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Reporting Administrator Abuse
I'm going to do the OP a favor and close this with no action against them. Essentially, the OP's misbehavior was pointed out by Acalamari and the OP is trying to present it as Acalamri's misbehavior. If another administrator thinks sanctions against the OP are warranted, that's up to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Acalamari is abusing his moderator powers in order to post unconstructive comments on talk pages, specifically when we were talking about if we should delete the US 2028 election or not, he said "that Drumpf supporters want there to be no more elections so they can remain in power forever doesn't mean we adhere to their delusions by deleting articles here". This is clearly unconstructive, and treating the talk page as a forum. I didn't know he was a moderator when I was removing his comment, and now he left all of these messages on my page and is saying I'm the real vandal here. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- So there's two things here.
- First, TopVat19sEver, you removed other users comments from a talk page (not allowed). A user voicing their opinion is not vandalism, not in the slightest. If you have a problem with what another user has said on the talkpage, rather than removing their comment (which is only allowed in very specific situations), you should bring it for discussion at an appropriate noticeboard, or preferably ask them to change their own comment.
- Second, Acalamari, could you please refrain from calling people "Drumpf supporters" and casting aspersions on the reasons for nominating an article for deletion? While you're entitled to your opinions, that's borderline (at best) incivility, especially when you call them "delusional".
- If both users agree to accept what they did wrong here and move forward, I don't think any further action is necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see this page for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is not vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly not vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok thank you for telling me TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Vandalism has a very specific definition on Misplaced Pages - see this page for more information on what is not vandalism. Merely calling people names and/or being uncivil, while against the rules, is not vandalism. There are proper processes for handling other rule violations (such as asking someone to edit their own comments, or asking a noticeboard for help) such as those, but they are decidedly not vandalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm newer to Misplaced Pages, I understand what you are saying, my train of thought was, "this comment looks like vandalism, vandalism on Misplaced Pages is removed, therefore remove". I didn't know that they don't do that for talk pages. Thank you my friend. TopVat19sEver (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Where are the diffs? M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- This is a baseless complaint. Ater not editing for months, the OP refactored an AfD that was closed last November. Acalamari rightly warned them for doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be blunt, Acalamari didn't even tell the editor when they initially reverted back in November (while the discussion was open) where they could discuss further/report if they felt the comment was not appropriate. I'm not suggesting sanctions against Acalamari at all. But to tell a new editor "someone broke the rules and since you didn't report it in the proper way at the time because nobody told you how, they're allowed to break the rules" is clear biting the newbies. I think all that's necessary is an apology from Acalamari - TV19E has already explained that they were mistaken as to it being vanadalism. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. First, it doesn't rise to the level required of this noticeboard, and, second, it's not at all timely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't edit for a few months because I have to do other things. I was just scrolling around I don't even remember what I was doing and I saw he put it back, I didn't know he was a mod, and it also said you can't edit archived talk pages, which he did, so I reverted his edit. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of the very few circumstances where you are allowed to remove another editor's comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh okay this is my mistake then I thought it was after the AfD was closed my bad TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wait hold on, I just looked at it again. He added back his comment after the result was SNOW. On the page when he re added it, it said do not edit the page. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- You removed Acalamari's comment as vandalism with the edit summary "subhanAllah". You had no right to do that. Acalamari restored it, which even though the AfD was closed, they had the right to do in the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/2028_United_States_presidential_election_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1257014612 Take a look, this is his edit. When he re added his comment, on the page in red it said Do not edit the page TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The comment never should've been removed in the first place. It's within the spirit of the rules to readd a comment that you improperly removed, even if the discussion had been closed in the meantime. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- He didn't modify a closed AfD. His comment was readded while the discussion was still open, because you removed it in violation of the very few circumstances where you are allowed to remove another editor's comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just said, he is the one who modified a closed AfD, which is not allowed, then I reverted it not knowing he is a moderator TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's not true. You modified a closed AfD. Acalamari rightly reverted your edit of an archived discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, but at the same time, I think TV19E has a right to be unhappy that Acalamari, an administrator and bureaucrat, was able to cast aspersions and call people names without it being called out at the time as far as I can see. They went about it the wrong way (removing the comment), but that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion of that comment. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There's no admin abuse here as no admin tools have been used. In case you missed "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below" with the bright red "Please do not modify it" at that AfD, I'll repeat the instructions here - don't modify archived discussions.-- Ponyo 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was saying Admin abuse because of the fact that he is able to keep his comment on the page when even if he is violating the rules. I'm not a moderator so I can't do anything about. Now I just learned from that guy that they don't remove comments even if its vandalism, now I know. But thats why I reported it here you know. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- He is the one who edited the closed AfD. This was one of the reason why I reverted his edit. TopVat19sEver (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's very hard to work out what's happening without the presence of diffs. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
without the presence of diffs
. But Ponyo and I have contributed, so you're in the presence of greatness; isn't that better than diffs? :p --Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Tiggerjay is bowing down in great humility before such greatness never before seen in this universe. Now.... where is the trout? TiggerJay (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Who am I to disagree with the Jedi? M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I've looked into this. And...surprise surprise, TopVat19sEver was the one who origially removed Aclamari's !vote while the AfD was still open . Yes, about a day after the AfD was closed, Aclamari reverted this removal , which is technically "editing a closed AfD" but I would say they were entirely within their rights to revert a bad removal. And now, suddenly, today, two months later, as their first edit after having done that improper removal, TopVat19sEver goes back to the AfD and removes Aclamari's !vote again , which Aclamari - entirely rightfully - reverted , and then TopVat19sEver comes here to cry "admin abuse", when no administrative abilities were used at all in this whole mess. Could Aclamari have used more moderate language in their initial !vote? Yeah maybe, but it was no violation at all, and the only thing needed here is a WP:BOOMERANG or at least a {{trout}} for TopVat19sEver. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Ban appeal from Rathfelder
- Rathfelder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Community banned in November 2022 for sockpuppetry, vote-stacking and undisclosed COI writing of a BLP attack page
- Appeal in January 2023 declined by the community
- Second appeal in October 2023 not submitted for review by the community for not complying with WP:GAB
Rathfelder has submitted the following ban appeal on their talk page and asked me to copy it here:
I realise that what I did was wrong - more wrong than I thought it was at the time. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur. I accept that I was wrong to create sockpuppets and I apologise. I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that. I did that really because I was trying to defend the work I had done for the Socialist Health Association for the previous 20 years. I did a lot of edits on that page, but they were, until the last few, about the history of the organisation, mostly adding to its list of distinguished members - largely before I was involved with it, and mostly before I was born. They were not at all controversial. I was unfairly sacked and my opponents started using Misplaced Pages against me. The row got into the media. I accept that I should not have done that. I should have resisted the temptation to use Misplaced Pages in the dispute.
I have spent 2 years working on Simple English and Wikimedia. I have not set up any sockpuppets or edited anything where I had conflicts. I plan to continue with Wikimedia, as there is plenty there to keep me busy, but I would like to be able, in particular, to add pictures to articles - now I have found my way round the enormous Wikimedia resource. I also sometimes come across articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment.
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Conditional support - If there's been no socking during the ban. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the data available to me was for the past 90 days. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are you permitted to say what time range the available data covers? The default is only 90 days isn't it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response to this, I ran some basic checks. There's no evidence of socking that I can see in the currently available data. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Question during the January 2024 unblock request Rathfelder said they would be willing to accept a restriction on editing articles related to BLPs or healthcare orgs. Are they still willing to accept those edit restrictions if they are un-banned? Furthermore, in January 2024 there was, at the time, no evidence of any further socking. Can we confirm that good behaviour has continued? Simonm223 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support They have been a very productive contributor at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and it has definitely been long enough for the standard offer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- To opposers: Would a TBAN from BLPs solve the issues you mention? I understand why some may be hesitant to unban, but they have been a very productive contributor on other wikis. I think that they would be a productive contributor if we simply give them a second chance. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as disingenuous. The circumstances which led me to edit pages where I was conflicted are not likely to recur: obviously it's reassuring to hear this, but there is no acceptance of personal responsibility. "The circumstances made me do it" is not a defence, or explanation. Likewise, I was involved in a dispute with my employers and it was very wrong of me to use Misplaced Pages as part of that does not do the facts justice. Rathfelder literally socked in order to be able to call a real life opponent a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist",
in wikivoicewith a misattributed op-ed quote. Difficult to imagine an editor of >half a million edits not knowing attribution requirements for BLPs. In fact, on investigation, they obviously do, as the adding of a {{BLP sources}} template indicates. If there's a Holy Trinity of wrong doing of things that damage the project the most, it's socking,vote stacking and deliberate BlP violations. These things are most dangerous to the project: they erode the trust between editors and the integrity of the consensus-driven decision making process and put WP at risk of at least public embarrassment if not a lawsuit. All of which Rathfelder did. All of which this appeal seems to attempt to explain away by "circumstances". I'm the first to offer rope when deserved, but such a glossing ban appeal, combined with it all happening only a couple of years ago, sets off more alarm bells than the Great Fire of London. There's no need for groveling, just an indication of self-knowledge and actual change. Serial (speculates here) 12:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)- I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for drawing my attention; I've clarified my comment. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't yet looked into this enough to express an opinion, but I would point out that the "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" quote was attributed in text to The Times, so was not in wikivoice. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose insufficient contrition and reflection on their frankly very serious misconduct. As Serial has said, they created an a attack page with very serious BLP vios using sockpuppets, you can't just handwave that away. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - My opinion is that editing pages to attack one's real life opponents isn't something you can just come back from, especially when you abusively socked and votestacked in addition. Please stick to editing other Wikis. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I don't often choose to comment on unblock requests but every day I come across past productive work done by Rathfelder when I'm working with categories which is how I'm familiar with their immense contributions to this project. They are responsible for a sizeable percentage of our category creation and have over a half million edits credited to this account. If it has been over a year since their last appeal (check), they haven't been socking (check), they have been productive on other Wikimedia projects (check) and they acknowledge their mistakes (check), then I believe they should be given another chance. It sounds like this was a specific incident in their life that happened several years ago that is unlikely to be repeated. Remember, indefinite is not infinite. And if you reject this appeal, I'm just wondering what exactly are you expecting to see in a future request that would lead you to accept it? Or is this indefinite block actually a forever block? Liz 18:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Serial Number 54129 points to the quote from the piece by Sarah Baxter as the most damning part of his evidence, but Baxter was deputy editor of The Times when she wrote the article, so it was reasonable to say that that newspaper said that. It may, of course, not be the best way to word things but we don't ban people for that. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, I point to far more tahn just that: I point to a refusal to adhere to neutrality in preference for an entire section reading like a hit piece; there were no redeeming features presented, or alternative interpretations suggested. Instead, a Jewish guy was literally called an antisemite, on Misplaced Pages, for Rathfelder's own ends. The quote from Baxter was merely an example, but the whole section was of that ilk. Correct, we don't ban people for poor expression. We do ban people for deliberately flaunting fundamental policy and attacking living people. It is also insufficient that they have done good work in the past, per Liz; it's not mitigating. Ironically their is a current arbcom case in which some of the most knowledgeable editors in the field are getting topic banned due to behavioral issues. The same principal applies here. Serial (speculates here) 20:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - The attack page, undisclosed COI, and sockpuppetry were serious offenses. Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support; willing to allow this editor another chance, hoping they'll understand that the community's tolerance is pretty much gone for any future problems. Rathfelder, if this is successful, when you're finding articles in English[REDACTED] which need amendment, I'd advise making it your default setting to open a talk section before making edits if there's any possibility the edit could be objectionable to anyone. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The arguments to maintain the ban seem to be mostly "He did some really bad stuff". I agree that he did. Personal attacks are bad. Socking is bad. Using[REDACTED] to prosecute real-life battles is bad. But I'm concerned about statements such as Hemiauchenia's "insufficient contrition and reflection" (although they are certainly entitled to express that opinion). We're not looking for self-flagilation here, nor are we looking for great works of literature as apologies. Our criteria for re-entry into the community isn't "Has never done anything really bad". It's "Understands what they did that was bad and has given credible assurances that it won't happen again", and I think we have those. Robert McClenon says "Sometimes it takes a long time to regain trust". Which is true, but this has been a bit over two years. That's a long time in my book. And it's not like they've gone away for two years and come back out of the blue; they've been contributing productively on other projects, so we have tangible evidence that they're capable of producing good work. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- People implicitly understand that Jytdog will probably never be unbanned from Misplaced Pages because his act of phoning up a fellow user he was in conflict with was a severe and inexcusable breach of decorum. I think that Rathfelder's breach was on par with that of Jytdogs. People using their position on Misplaced Pages to write attack pages of living people is a huge violation of Misplaced Pages's standards. It's not just some minor misconduct like youthful vandalism or minor socking where someone can just brush it off as "whoopsie, my bad" and be relatively easily unblocked. Stuff like this brings the whole encyclopedia into disrepute. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support I find RoySmith's articulation much more convincing. We don't need to have a concept of unforgivable sins here. And this applies to everyone. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Pppeery-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Liz and Roysmith. While Rathfelder's misconduct was quite severe, it was an anomaly in a long, active, and productive editing career here; and his activity at Simple as continued that pattern. Unlike Serial, I do see understanding and regret, which they are *amplifying* rather than *replacing* with the assurance that the circumstances under which the misconduct arose are unlikely to repeat. So - worth another go, I think. No opinion whether a TBAN of some sort should be imposed; if I were Rathfelder, I would stay away from BLPs for some time anyway. Martinp (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Appealing April 4 2024, indefinite WP:CUP ban and indefinite 1-nomination GAN limit
Consensus to lift this ban will not develop. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At User_talk:TonyTheTiger#Topic_bans, I was instructed by closer User:Ingenuity that I could appeal these in a year and it has been 9.5 months. I am appealing because the CUP entry deadline is traditionally January 31. See Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2020 signups through Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2024 signups. This year the Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2025 signups verbiage says "The competition will begin on 1 January 2025 and signups will continue throughout the year". I am just noticing the new language as I am putting this appeal in. Nonetheless, I am requesting time off for good behavior on the ban.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The utter cluelessness of this appeal is more than enough reason not to do this. I was going to write more but decided that coaching you on how to be less clueless is not in the project's best interest. You've been here long enough that you should be able to see for yourself how terrible this appeal is. Beeblebrox 19:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and recommend we disallow any further appeals for another year. I'm concerned otherwise we'll just be back here in April. --Yamla (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now It's pretty clear that most people in that discussion were supporting an indef ban from the Cup, not an 8-month ban. This appeal doesn't address people's concerns with Tony's editing relating to the Cup, so should be denied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The original discussion wasn't linked, it can be found here. At that place it is very clear that
here is almost unanimous support for an indefinite ban on participation in the WikiCup
, so, no, this appeal should not be passed. It is, honestly, astonishing that TonyTheTiger has been here very nearly two decades but hasn't taken on board the way the community works ~ Lindsay 19:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose for no rational that they understand why they were banned or what even led to their ban, and rather simply a sentiment of "I really want to participate". Please understand that your ban was indefinite, so the one year appeal opportunity is your potential opportunity "time off for good behavior". TiggerJay (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Appealing early on the basis that you won't be able to sign up to do the thing you were banned from doing is certainly a unique take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Requesting info
Steve Quinn is
trouted for bringing this to AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. I have come across several image files and the U.S. Gov. PD licensing seems to be incorrect. Four of these images and possibly another one could be copyright violations - if I can figure out how to find this type of information on their websites. However, since I am unable to find that information at this moment, I am wondering which group of Misplaced Pages editors work on this sort of thing so that maybe I can get some help with this. I will post the files here for information purposes. Also, there may be more copyright violations by this particular editor who seems to have a propensity for downloading image files. Below are the files:
- File:AL-Cattlemen-2022-approved-passenger-768x376.jpg
- File:AL-Ducks-Unlimited-2022-768x370.jpg
- File:AmateurRadAZ.jpg
- File:AppalachianTN.jpg
- File:Acplate.jpg
Further comment: The above TN file - File:AppalachianTN.jpg - is covered by the TN.GOV "linking policy" and can be found here. So this Misplaced Pages image file is still not licensed appropriately, although I have no idea what the correct Misplaced Pages licensing would be.
I will notify the editor who downloaded these files that I have opened a discussion here. Well, now that I have taken it this far, the editor in question is: Brian.S.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). However, the above image files might be too stale to be considered for any action. I leave that up to the Admins. If you look on their talk page, they have previously been blocked for copyright violations. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- As you can see they've already been tagged for a deletion discussion yesterday, so there is no need to have a difference notice board also working on it. TiggerJay (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Please Help Me!
Hi there, I'm Arav200 and I'm not a new at english Misplaced Pages, Previously I'm editing from Bhairava7 but due to my old account (Bhairava7) and it's attached gmail are protected from 2 Factor Authication, so, I'm unable to access my account,Please help me and If administrator transfer userright from my old account to Arav200 then It 'll be helpful for me otherwise after my old account permission will be removed due to after Inactive and I create this account through WP:ACC due to Skipcptcha restrictions.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Confirmed to Bhairava7. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I was a bit surprised about the English, but it is similar to previous edits from the old account ( ). I have noted the connection on the two accounts' user pages, but I'd like to try requesting 2FA removal before giving up and transferring the permissions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca
wikimedia.org from the e-mail address you have used for the Bhairava7 account. Please describe the problem and request the removal of two-factor authentication from your account. See meta:Help:Two-factor_authentication#Recovering_from_a_lost_or_broken_authentication_device for details. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Bhairava7 / Aarav200, please contact ca
- I didn't able to access my also gmail (who attached from old account) due to 2:FA protection,then I was created new account with new gmail for re-contribution on Misplaced Pages. :(Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Please try the following steps to regain access to your Gmail account: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/7299973 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is much useful but I can verify that he is indeed Bhairava7 as I contacted him over at discord personally. The AP (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was emailed about this. Given Yamla's CheckUser result, I don't think that there is any reasonable doubt that it is the same person operating both accounts. While they may be able to recover the account from T&S, I feel like it is a bit unnecessary to force them to go through that route as it is ultimately their choice whether they want to recover the account or create another one (even if I personally have a bias for recovering). I was going to transfer the permissions over, but saw this thread, so didn't follow through with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@ToBeFree and Sdrqaz:,I also tried as per the link given by ToBeFree but I am not able to recover or access my Gmail... It would be better if I give up the desire to contribute to Misplaced Pages... I am also trying my best... If both are recovered then it will be good... Please forgive me but I will take full care that such mistake does not happen again in future... If possible, please transfer the rights of my old mentioned account to my new account because I've feel more stress at this time.Happy editing Aarav200 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will transfer them over, given that it has been unsuccessful. I also think that this route is kinder. If T&S disables 2FA on your old account and you would like to go back to using it, please let me know. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
BAG nomination
Hi! I have nominated myself for BAG membership. Your comments would be appreciated on the nomination page. Thanks! – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I need help from an admin - Urgent
I'm not sure about oranges from Jaffa, but there's a pack of blocks from Misplaced Pages here. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Misplaced Pages Team,
I need an urgent help concerning a page and information about my project, I'd appreciate if a[REDACTED] admin can contact me to help.
Many thanks, Mohammed Mohamugha1 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- There's not enough information here for anyone to do anything. Please tell us what the problem is and what help you need. You probably want to read WP:COI prior to doing anything further, though, just in case you've been violating our guidelines around conflicts of interest. --Yamla (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's the issue? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- This account probably needs blocking. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Relevant article:
- An Orange from Jaffa (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- OP possibly using multiple accounts:
- Mohamugha1 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- MohammedAlmughanni (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- DMacks (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- MohammedAlmughanni blocked as a sock. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Khabib Nurmagomedov French page modified by 92.184.106.82 to edit origin as Algerian
fr.wiki is thataway. → - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Modifications history shows the following IP 92.184.106.82 made numerous edits to Khabib Nurmagomedov's French[REDACTED] page to include false information around his nationality, background and place of birth among other edits.This IP needs to be blocked and banned from editing. Lebronzejames999 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to contact the French Misplaced Pages. This is en.wikipedia.org and we only have say over what happens here on the English WIkipedia. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
EncycloDeterminate unblocked
The Arbitration Committee has resolved that:
Following an appeal, the Arbitration Committee repeals the Oversight block of EncycloDeterminate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as it is no longer necessary.
For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § EncycloDeterminate unblocked
Permission request
| WP:LTA. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
No. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I am User:CFA's legitimate alt account for WP:AWB editing at high volume. Please add extended confirmed to my account. Thank you CFA (AWB) (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
|
Proposed community ban of Marginataen
COMMUNITY BAN IMPOSED This clearly fall sunder theexcept in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hourscondition of WP:CBAN. Accordingly, Marginataen is, by the consensus of the Misplaced Pages community, banned from en.wiki. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Marginataen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been indefblocked twice for various issues over the years (and is subject to a long-term block on the wiki of their native language), and two days after their last unblock, they were blocked for a week for mass-changes to date formats without consensus, as discussed at ANI. Well they've gone back to more unwarranted mass-date format changes like this; their last hundred edits at the time of writing are a good sampler. Despite being explicitly told that English variety/date formats are set per article, not per topic, they have continued to use topic similarity as a justification for their mass-editing; I was going to send them my own warning about this but the discovery of this message tipped me over into submitting a ban request.
They clearly have extreme "I didn't hear that" problems with their editing pattern; also the idea of a non-native speaker of English trying to police/standardise the use of English variety templates on Misplaced Pages does not sit well with me. I have undone many of their most recent edits, some of which introduced Manual of Style violations of their own. Furthermore, in the light of this AN discussion (that wasn't actionable) about their interest in right-wing topics, perhaps their creation of the spin-off article Post-2012 legal history of Anders Breivik might need to be looked into. In short, I'm not sure what benefit is being gained by this user's continued presence on this project. Graham87 (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Will abstain as I hope no one will require sanctions and I am pretty clearly involved again despite hoping I wouldn't have to be, but just wanted to make clear on my own edits that if I made any errors on the sweep-up, please let me know and I'll fix them. Thanks.) Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Doing the exact thing that get that them blocked after being unblocked. I’ll also add that they unilaterally changed articles into British spellings with no explanation or discussion given either. Northern Moonlight 06:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- 20 more edits after the AN notice. Northern Moonlight 18:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support pretty clear repeat violations of previous block reasons. Doing enough of this to be disruptive and unproductive, not listening to feedback or starting appropriate discussions. seefooddiet (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Might considering a RFC on Meta to globally ban Marginataen in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Repeatedly making disruptive edits even after having been blocked several times and promising to mend their ways. Økonom (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Per proposal. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Don't waste the community's time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: It might be a good idea to block the known sockpuppets of Marginataen that are not already blocked: Tamborg, Bubfernr, and LatteDK. There may be others that I have missed. HappyBeachDreams (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support.
I'm not sure how to deal with this. I guess Marginataen is honestly trying to contribute and collaborate, but...Case in point regarding "I didn't hear that": Remsense recently asked Marginataen to stop mass-tagging articles. Three hours later, Marginataen responded: "Yes, I'll stop mass adding templates". And yet another hour later, Marginataen added these templates to two more articles. It seems that Marginataen didn't understand what Remsense said. P.S.: ...and Marginataen keeps going. Hopeless. Block. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)- As a purely stopgap measure, I've blocked Marginataen from mainspace for a week to encourage them to respond here. Any admin should feel free to unblock without asking me, if the block becomes no longer necessary. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 20:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Gotta play by the rules. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The continuous disruption far outweighs the minimal content contribution. Brandon (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban - I don't think that the user is being consciously disruptive. I think that this is largely a competence problem and that the user doesn't understand what they are being told. We only have so much patience for users who can't understand what they are told to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support a ban. No reason to suspect the behavior will stop as a result of a lesser measure. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
User:TWC DC1
Warned, then sockblocked. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster (she/they) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recommend issuing a warning to User:TWC DC1, as their actions appear to be gaming the system. Despite previous warnings, they have continued this behavior. --SimmeD (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.G7 request by a blocked account
G7'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:12, 20 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 take a look at this? It appears to be a "db-author" request for Draft:Francesca Martí. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Qualifies for G7. Deleted by me. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Sapo.pt
Could an admin undelete that redirect? Thanks Nobody (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Proxy question
I recently enabled the IP Info widget and have seen a number of IPs that are flagged as proxies (e.g., (Redacted)). Would IPs being flagged with this tool warrant them being blocked? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- You can report IPs that you suspect of being proxies at WP:OP. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Over on WP:OP we openly talk about IPs and proxies, so it doesn't make sense that we couldn't here IMO
- Thank you all for the input. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for clarifying. Much appreciated EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing about talking about IPs in general. Obviously saying that an IP is a proxy is fine. It's specifically about saying that IP Info says an IP is a proxy. That's proprietary information from Spur that the WMF licenses on the condition of not disseminating. I also would like more clarity on the scope of that rule, but at least the plain-text reading says we can't attribute information to the tool. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 05:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't even see the reason for redacting, let alone revdel. People can talk about IP addresses, especially in the context of proxies and especially when they aren't connected to an individual user / account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think revdel is an over-reaction too, except ... that seems to be exactly what the "rules" for use of the tool say. This should probably be ironed out somewhere. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a reason to treat the IP with more suspicion and investigate further but it's not good enough on its own for a block. I think revdel is a bit of an overreaction personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: Yes, the tool is saying there "In the last x days, at least one person connecting on this IP has been using proxy software y", which is definitely evidence toward an NOP block, but not enough on its own. Also, my understanding of foundation:Legal:Wikimedia IP Information Tool Policy § Use and disclosure of IP information is that you can't publicly say that the tool says a specific IP is a proxy except "as reasonably required in use of the tool", which I would read as allowing you to say that a block was partly based on IP Info without going into further detail, but probably not allowing you to post an example IP and say "the tool says this is a proxy". Out of an abundance of caution I've redacted+revdelled the example you gave above; if I'm misunderstanding the policy, no objection to being reverted. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think so because I don't think it's 100% accurate. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts my question is more that if i see that info in the widget when blocking an IP, is it safe to block it as a proxy? EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Undeletion + XML export request
Please undelete pre-December 2007 revisions of Drum set tuning, use Special:Export, and email me the contents of the XML file you get, per b:WB:UT. JJPMaster (she/they) 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've undeleted the history. You can do the export process yourself then. Since it was just a dated PROD and it looks like there were prior copyvio concerns but the copyright holder eventually provided permission, there's no reason the history can't also be available here. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19
Stray page deleted (non-admin closure) Mlkj (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Perhaps someone could take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Help desk/Archive 19? It looks like the page was created back in 2008, perhaps by mistake, and has just been "existing" ever since then. The Help Desk archive is currently at 14 pages but eventually it will reach 19; so, at some point, this is going to need to be dealt with. I'm not sure whether the page needs only to be blanked or should be deleted, but the latter will obviously need to be done by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Done I've deleted it (G2, "test page" seemed close enough). - The Bushranger One ping only 07:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you The Bushranger. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:BLPN closures
2601AC47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Deb Matthews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ministry of Education (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2 sections Deb Matthews and Ministry of Education (Ontario)(MoE) were closed by User:2601AC47. The closing user participated in the MoE discussion. I find the MoE closing discussion summary inaccurate and disrespectful. The Deb Matthews closing summary cites the MoE one. I would like a more respectful summary of the discussions.
I have discussed with the user on User talk:2601AC47#Closures_on_WP:BLPN. The user refused to change the summaries. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say something similar in a more polite but firm way: go look for sources and add then instead of insisting on deleting the table. You are fighting a losing battle. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for the closes to be overturned, I just asked for the summaries to be changed. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, you can ask, but nobody is going to override this inconsequential close of a discussion where many editors told you that you were wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I decline your request to withdraw. WP:DEALWITHINCIVIL makes it clear that I can ask for disrespectful comments to be removed. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm saying that you should withdraw this request and get back to editing. I agree 2601 was rude but that doesn't change the fact that they are correct that you were wrong to try to remove material from both articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this is yet more characteristic behavior of Legend. While they make some really good and positive contributions, they seem to only be here to edit the articles in their own image, and do not know how to manage consensus building, nor conflict aside from filing copious notice boards, lawyering with non-conventional arguments or just walking away from discussions. Again when editing in areas without contention, they are an asset, but the moment something is reverted, they seem to have little skills with resolving it properly. (Mobile at the moment, but diffs are widely available). TiggerJay (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just so it's clear, are you supporting a change to the closure summaries or opposing it or neutral? Legend of 14 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- So much for cooperation... 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think you should probably recalibrate how you communicate with other editors. You come across as sometimes rude and dismissive in that discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm thinking 2601AC47 is coming off a little rude and dismissive in THIS discussion as well. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL . - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wasn't your response for me to withdraw this discussion? Seeking clarity. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I did, because your report was about changing a summary of a discussion in which the outcome would remain the same. Several editors have told you to stop removing uncited, non-controversial material from articles, so you should stop doing that instead of starting an AN discussion about the impolite close of the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now, to hopefully not add on to the pile that this may become, I would try finding consensus in a similar way for what you're editing with regards to the pages of the government agencies. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have stopped doing that. I respect consensus. I can both ask for the summaries to be respectful and not remove uncited material for which consensus has found to be non-controversial. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know what Legend's background is, but if someone said something like this to me in a professional setting, I'd think they were being rude and unprofessional. It's unfortunate that we've normalized people being jerks on wiki and whenever someone comes to complain about it, the response is usually "well, that's not really that uncivil" or "well, they were being a pain in the ass, so it's justified". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- True, Phil, for a relatively new editor, Legend of 14 has brought more cases to noticeboards than some editors do over years spent editing on the project. If this becomes habitual, this approach to getting things done ones way can backfire on an editor. Noticeboards are a place to go to after basic discussion has failed to come to a resolution, not for the kind of disagreements we all face on a regular basis. You don't want to spend more time talking about editing than actually editing. And, for goodness' sake, don't file a complaint over how this complaint is being handled. No need to come to my User talk page to claim I'm being disrespectful, too. Liz 21:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you have concerns about me resorting to notice boards, perhaps talk to Adam Bishop who removed 2 discussions from article talk pages, which is why I resorted to WP:BLPN for those articles. For my 5 additions to WP:BLPN on Jan. 17, I truly believed I had no where else to go. Also, so we're clear, can you please clarify if you believe user talk pages are an appropriate place to raise concerns about uncivil conduct like name calling? Legend of 14 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- They also seem to have a very skewed viewpoint of WP:CIVIL . - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, they are. But Legend of 14 is coming across as a Wikilawyer rather than a collaborative editor in all of the noticeboard discussions that they have started in the last week or two. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- May be I should have more specifically mentioned crying wolf (metaphorically, if there's ever confusion). But moreover, Legend's concerns pertain to the articles that was being edited on (mostly pertaining to Ontario-based agencies), which Legend appeared to ingratiatingly remove some "uncited" information from. I reverted some of them, and as a BLPN watcher, took note of this in trying to explain to them that there are guidelines, especially on citing sources and the MoS. So far, I've not really seen that (prove me wrong). Ultimately, I could suggest to Legend that this is their own responsibility, but alas, thinks that I and some others are at fault here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Snarky remarks really aren't helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
How do we handle Israel Palestine new articles created by non ECP editors nowadays?
For example, Hussein al-Khalil. In theory I think this could be deleted via WP:G5 for violating WP:ARBECR. But is that what we do? Or do we look the other way if the article is OK? Should we just protect it ECP and call it a day?
Hmm, actually this is an article about a Hezbollah member, not a Hamas member. So does this even fall under the umbrella of Israel Palestine? Thanks in advance for the advice. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. If it was (for example) a Hamas member, different admins appear to take different routes. Such articles should be deleted per ARBECR, but if it was a completely neutral well written article whose very existence wasn't a contentious one, I'd be tempted to let it slide. YMMV. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- It might fall under WP:CTOP/A-I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per WP:ARBECR ¶ A2,
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- As long as the article is acceptable, this is what WP:IAR is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that they were specifically told not to do this when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of CTOP at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. Beeblebrox 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, it should probably be nuked. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Administrators are never required to use their tools; no ignoring of rules is needed to simply not take action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that they were specifically told not to do this when they created another Hezzbollah-related article in November, and were advised of CTOP at the same time, this seems like a deliberate breach. Beeblebrox 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- As long as the article is acceptable, this is what WP:IAR is for. Notify the creator about the ECR restrictions, template the article talk page, and call it good. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hezbollah is a belligerent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, so, probably. However, per WP:ARBECR ¶ A2,
- It might fall under WP:CTOP/A-I. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Archive bots
This is not an issue that requires administrative attention. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there a way to have a bot archive articles on a page for you? I vaguely recall such a feature.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Note of caution on attacks on Misplaced Pages's neutrality.
We know to keep an eye out for "neturality police" IPs/new editors. Speculation on anything more should be left to the WMF per WP:NOTFORUM (and, indeed, WP:BEANS). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As observed here, Musk and others now in positions with Trump's admin are calling out Misplaced Pages's "lack of neutrality". At best they are current only calling for trying to defund it, but given a the craziness of the last 48hrs alone, I would not be surprised to see new or IP editors with strong conservative ideals trying to "fix" the neutrality problem. Nothing we haven't seen before but now that these people have a megaphone to state this, the quantity could become elevated. — Masem (t) 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do they mean anything by "defund" other than calling for people to stop donating (and haha, good luck with that one, these attacks seem to have resulted in the opposite)? Can Elon and Trump actually try and freeze the Foundation's assets or anything like that? Silverseren 00:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
My caution here is that we might see new and IP see these calls as dogwhistles to attack WP in other ways, which we as admin and involved editors can take a ton against. — Masem (t) 00:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- If the US decides to strip WMF's status then, a total and global outrage might happen. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations
Elon Musk definitely doesn't want to be liable every time someone posts a copyright violating image on Twitter, so I doubt that will happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)- I'd say that we probably shouldn't give them ideas for how to attack us. Contrary to what some believe, these are very public noticeboards that are readable to anyone on the Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- There is a proposed bill going around that would allow non profits to be stripped of that status should they be considered a terrorist org or support terrorism. While what we do is clearly not that, in this new administration, anything goes. However all that is a WMF problem and I assume they are ready to fight.
- Likely not within a legal framework that exists right now... but they could, for example, pressure Congress to pass a new law, or they could attempt to eliminate the safe harbor protections that the WMF (among other organizations) are given from copyright violations, which would allow people to sue for copyvios being displayed at all, no matter how quickly they're removed. And even if they don't try to make it sound legal, they could always just throw another executive order at the wall and see if it sticks - possibly as part of a "burst" like he did within the first 24 hours of his term. This strategy isn't anything new - trying to overload organizations'/lawyers' capabilities to sue to block those orders, and the courts' ability to handle those suits, during which time they can do what they want. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)