| Revision as of 05:35, 3 December 2006 view sourceWoohookitty (talk | contribs)Administrators611,228 edits →Review of Indef block of SuperDeng← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:28, 11 January 2025 view source Scope creep (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers144,026 edits →Topic ban appeal: comment update | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |counter = 368 | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |||
| |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| }}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | |||
| |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} | |||
| |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive | |||
| |format=%%i | |||
| |age=48 | |||
| |index=no | |||
| |numberstart=255 | |||
| |minkeepthreads= 4 | |||
| |maxarchsize= 700000 | |||
| }} | |||
| --><!-- | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| <!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}}<!-- This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-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 == | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| == ] 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) | |||
| ::I'm increasingly concerned about the matter of an image with personally-identifiable information being left undeleted after attention has been drawn to it. While I think it was a mistake (though a well-meaning one) to draw attention to it through the talk page instead of by private e-mail, I'm puzzled that Husnock did not delete it immediately when he was made aware of it (especially since Durin was kind enough to make an identical but safe image for him at ]), but instead drew further attention to it, while complaining about someone having discovered his last name. I have decided to go ahead and delete it myself. If Husnock decides that he is, after all, comfortable with having a photo at Misplaced Pages that can lead to his identity being made public, then, well, he's an admin and it will take just three seconds for him to undelete it. I'll post something to him later. Going to lunch now. ] ] 14:35, 2 December 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) | |||
| :::::That is getting silly. He has no right to make accusations like that against you. I hope the e-mail Cool Cat sent calmed things down. Husnock also seems unable to admit that he might have been wrong, instead saying things like: ''"much to my horror his activites were backed by a large number of well established users. It makes one wonder."'' It certainly makes me wonder, but not in the way Husnock might think. ] 14:29, 30 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) | |||
| I found this article in the Misplaced Pages deleted articles archives and being an investigative journalist and a reporter for a major newspaper, I thought that its only fair to show the other side of this story to this article titled Ecopave Australia nonsense, | |||
| For what I can gather after reading the Misplaced Pages guidelines, is that the above administrator '''Guy''' may also be taking part in ] against Ecopave. It also appears that this article is in response to the evidence that was presented by a Misplaced Pages user (Fact Finder) who was later permanently blocked and their user talk pages deleted by Mr Chapman. I have read the Ecopave response and you can read about it here Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard ] 00:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Fact Finder has been making semi-literate rants, frivolous legal threats, and personal attacks for a while, and showed no sign of participating in the creation of an encyclopedia. At one point when I was engaging him in discussion, he noticed somewhere in my user page or personal website that I'm a member of ], and started insinuating that I was lying about this. He's also accused an administrator of abuse for having more than one IP address from which he logs in (as most people do, if they participate from both home and work, for instance), and even alleged that Wikipedians were sending computer viruses to his company. He has the preposterous idea that simply mentioning his company/product name, Ecopave, without obfuscating it in ] manner, is somehow a trademark violation. ] 00:34, 1 December 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) | |||
| == 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) | |||
| == 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) | |||
| :Classic case of ALTTP being a ], if you ask me. --] 23:35, 30 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) | |||
| == 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) | |||
| ==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) | |||
| ::Much appreciated. Many thanks. ] 17:03, 30 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) | |||
| == User continuously repeating same edits == | |||
| 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. | |||
| I request ban of user from editing the article. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == New guideline ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| == IP talk pages == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Spam socks == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Thanks, cleaned them up. ] 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == E.Shubee == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :To point out some other discussions about E.Shubee see here and here . --] (]) 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==National Portrait Gallery IP== | |||
| 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) | |||
| :This strikes me as something Wikimedia needs to deal with directly, and not for admins. - ]]] 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I left a message at ]. ] 17:23, 29 November 2006 (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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::UK law is irrelavant as the Foundation has no presence in the UK. ] 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Review of Indef block of SuperDeng == | |||
| {{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 ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :: 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) | |||
| ::::::My thoughts exactly. I mean, if this was just one vio and then sockpuppet use, I could see unblocking and giving him another shot. But he's been at this for a year now and yet he just continues on his merry way. He isn't going to change. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * (outdent) Deng is agitating for an unblock. The more I look at this, the more justified I think the block is. If anyone whats to help him get to ArbCom they are welcome, but I don't see much likelihood of any outcome other than a ban. As my friend Mr Larrington would have it: shoot him and burn the body. I'd link you to the source of that quote but due to an outbreak of frightfulness in the BRITONS' England, is currently devoid of its illuminating and civilising content. Bah! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** I share the same view. As I stated above, some (including dmcdevit, who I respect greatly) have suggested arbcom but why waste their time on this? --]<sup>]</sup> 12:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *** That's not really our call, IMO. They can, if they choose, dismiss the case as a righteous block - they have done that before. Little time is wasted in that case, and we have made every effort to be fair. If, on the other hand, ArbCom decide that there might be some merit in considering the case, that's their prerogative (yes that will suck in some of our time as well, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it). I somehow doubt they will accept, but I have not yet seen anything like a neutral statement of Deng's grievances. Maybe if he can document calmly what his problem is, he will be on the way to fixing the problem. And pigs might fly. In the end, though, I see not much to be lost and some to be gained from allowing Deng his day in court, even if the case is thrown out on day 1. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **** I've been going through this with him for over a year now. He's not going to change. Trust me. And I just don't see the use of an arbcom case. Why force people to present the case against him yet again when it's pretty clear cut. What I mean is that I've given the evidence on RfCU 3-4 times and another 3-4 on AN and AN/I. If he isn't going to change (which I don't think he is), I just don't see the point of making us go through an ArbCom case. I think we can safely use "exhausted community's patience" with Deng as we have with others. That block log is a book. And again. He's not going to change. He's shown no inkling of wanting to change. His explanation for everything has stayed the same since April. It's a biased admin and he's never used socks and he does nothing wrong and it's everyone else's fault, etc, etc. There hasn't been even a hint of "hey, I'm wrong". And honestly, given the subject matter Deng posts on along with the passion of the nationalist fervor with which he and his supporters post, I just feel like it'd be asking for more edit warring on the articles he's involved in along with his arbcom case. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Appeals == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| ::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). | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Need review of endless ongoing situation == | |||
| 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 | |||
| See the requestr for another aDMIN TO REVIEW | |||
| See the post today which is the exact claim that was refuted in arbitration and for which the user was placed on probation | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Misrepresentation of arbcom decision might be one. ]. ] 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :Anyone else want to speak up? ] <sup>]</sup> 15:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have previously commented extensively at ], ] and ] (the current as well as archived Intangible threads). You are free to consult any of my prior comments. However, since I am , I've decided to sit this one out. ] 20:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just for the record, I think your analysis was well-informed, neutral and, um, adequate. At least adequete; maybe better. But I do think Intangible's work on ] has become disruptive. His demand for a universally-agreed-upon definition is unreasonable, and his use of pov tags has had the effect of holding the page hostage to an impossible demand. I am banning him from ] for one week under terms of his probation. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbcom campaigning images == | |||
| T-shirts? --<font color="3300FF">] </font> 21:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::Bah rulecreep. OK, is how mine is used. Divisive? ] | ] 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC). | |||
| :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) | |||
| : 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) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :I'm failing to see much of a problem with this at the moment.] 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Given their licensing, shouldn't they be on the commons? ] <small>]</small> 22:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::My comment was also clearly intended quasi-humorously. ] <small>]</small> 22:40, 30 November 2006 (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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Quite. And if they get deleted I will ] to protest. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:42, 30 November 2006 (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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| : Secret ballot, anyone? ;-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As someone so rightfully mentioned above with the ''"Daniel.Bryant eats puppies"'' example, I reckon these are just a little bit of "quasi-humour" (]), and provided they don't change from this into what could broadly interpreted as a ] against other candidates, this intent won't change. '''] <sup>] · ] ]</sup>''' 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This page has (as of right now) the wording: | |||
| "''In cases where no such images/sounds are currently available, then fair use images are acceptable (until such time as free images become available).''" | |||
| 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) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| :I blocked for seven days. Appropriate? -- ''']''' 23:05, 29 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::(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) | |||
| :::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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| :::::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) | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| ::::::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) | |||
| :::::::''Tariq-7-day-block-abjotu'' hey, hey! not necessary! -- ''']''' 01:56, 30 November 2006 (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) | |||
| ::::::::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) | |||
| :::::::::Thanks; I get it. -- ''']''' 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| *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) | |||
| == ] again == | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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. | |||
| :<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) | |||
| *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) | |||
| == ] backlog == | |||
| ]'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) | |||
| :Somehow the page went out of my watch list. Giving a hand now. -- ] 02:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Username with non-Latin characters == | |||
| 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) | |||
| :(S)he should be warned, both about the vandalism and about the username. -- ''']''' 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm reporting to AIV, seems like she should get immediate block. -]<sup>]]</sup> 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Blocked per violation of ]. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 04:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Usernames containing non-Latin characters== | |||
| 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) | |||
| ::: 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) | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| ::::: I think this is a good example for why we may need to rethink this policy. ] 03:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I see absolutely no reason a valid and long term contributor to wikipedia 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) | |||
| (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'd recommend allowing this specific user to keep their name as a "grandfather clause", due their choosing this handle before policy was enacted. That would not allow new users or vandals to make similar names. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps the rule could be changed so that usernames require 75% or more latin characters. It would allow Yamaguchi to keep his name, and would allow people to identify users based on the latin characters. ] 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have to ask. Why does anyone care, why are we making an issue out of nothing? Does it really matter that you can't see Yamaguchi's 先生? Sure, some usernames are impossible to get at, and impossibly to refer to, and if the user wasn't an active constructive editor, I wouldn't mind. But when you get absolutely stupid needless blocks such as for ] based on this stupid application of twatty rules, something is wrong, the pencil pushers have taken over. - ]]] 01:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The rationale is given on the ] page. For many people those character don't render (me included) coming out as little boxes or question marks (i.e. each character is indistinguishable), look at an article history and see the list of authors as indistinguishable, not too useful. That is why there is no issue with these in signatures where it is little more than an incovenience if it doesn't render, since you can still see the underlying username by "hovering" over the link. "based on this stupid application of twatty rules" - the kind of quality argument I would hope most people gave up years ago, this is the school playground argument every rule I disagree with it "twatty". We are a project to build an encyclopedia, we put all sorts of practical restrictions in place to meet that goal, this is no different, if you want a place to show off your artistic ability or cleverness in picking a username there are plenty of other sites which exist to let you do that. --] 10:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I envisaged that anyone reading my previous statement would have a sense of humour or some sense of imagination. Maybe pedantic would have been a better word, or turning a blind eye a better phrase. But I fail to see how indef-blocking a constructive user such as ] is of benefit to the encyclopedia. I know we all love bureaucracy and doing things by the book, but some discretion really wouldn't hurt. If your browser cannot display the degree symbol, then something is wrong with your browser. Sure, it might be a little harder to navigate to their user page, but was that even a big problem? - ]]] 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::My sense of humour is fine thanks, though maybe I should get that checked since I can't see anything vaguely humorous in your comment, nor do I see where imagination comes into it. Your point here is far nearer my own view on the subject, apply some common sense if someone has made numerous good edits then jumping in and blocking is foolish as is the start of this "they have been told" (again perhaps to the playground, the prefects have told you...). Hopefully we are all trying to reach the same goal and some reasonable discussion will resolve the position or we have ] specifically for username issues. As above I agree with the policy and for the issue it would be better if the software stopped those names being entered or we block them at creation, the reasoning being as above and for the other ] reason. --] 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] has been backlogged for over 48 hours now, and it has 16 items now (so the number is growing). --] 11:27, 30 November 2006 (]]]) | |||
| == Trial in DYK == | |||
| 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> | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Out of curiosity, what's the problem with "4th century"? I know it's tied to one culture's dating system, but what's a better alternative? Or is your point that it should be "Fourth Century"? ] 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bear in mind that ''for the moment'', the "next update" template isn't protected. Part of the idea was that anyone can fix errors on it before the entries hit the Main Page. ] <sup>]</sup>⁄<sub>]</sub> <small>• 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *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) | |||
| == Unfair and biased deletion notice== | |||
| {{main|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| **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) | |||
| ***EC, agree with Proto. Settle it at AfD. <b>]</b> <small>]</small> 13:08, 30 November 2006 (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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :''whats to stop a group of college kids in a dorm deleting half the articles on Misplaced Pages as a prank one Saturday night?'' Well, for one thing, AfDs run for 5 days. For another, AfDs are NOT decided by majority vote. For a third, if there is evidence of mass collusion that involves vandalism (as is certainly the case were a BUNCH of good articles to be proposed for deletion by a GROUP of novice editors), then administrators would certainly step in, and this might be a good place - hypothetically - to bring such a situation to administrator attention. | |||
| :More constructively: it's perfectly okay to improve an article in the middle of an AfD, even if it's just putting up a few more links, and to mention that in the AfD process. | |||
| :The system for deleting articles isn't perfect, but it's absolutely necessary, and it generally works well - and that system includes deletion review, as noted above, so an incorrect AfD decision can be reversed. And as you note, the article can always be revised/rewritten to a better version and reposted; but do make sure it's REALLY much better before it goes back up. ] | ] 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :For one, a checkuser could step in and range-block the dorm. It wouldn't be the first time either. ] ] 13:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Furthermore, by posting here an in the tone that you have, Husnock, you basically are claiming that the nominator and anyone voting delete on the article is acting in bad faith. You claim the AfD is "unfair". And how, exactly, did you determine that? If an article is nominated for AfD, then it should be judged on the merits of the article. If the article can be cleaned up, it's contengent upon those who wish to keep it to clean it up, source it, etc. If the consensus is to delete, then it's deleted, otherwise it's kept. If there are 500 baseless delete votes based on "Ihateit" and 2 keep votes with solid policy backing them, the article should be kept. By bringing this to AN you are suggesting that this article (and by extension anything ''you'' feel should not be deleted) should be exempted from the normal way of handling business on WP. Contemptible. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::My main intent here was to discover what one could do ''while the vote is going on'' to stop an unfair AfD. My judgement of unfair was that the article was totally sourced with references and was marked for deletion by others anyway. I even posted to the talk page of the AfD page so those voting could come here and respond to this to be fair to them. I have my answer now, though, and its sad. The article will die but I will try and rebuilt it later. -] 14:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] - if you choose to do so, you will need to ensure that it is not substantially similar to the deleted content. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 14:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have a good idea of how to proceed. And how do I get my own ]! Can I sick it on vandals? -] 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Elara hit the nail on the head- "contemptible." Husnock, if your RfA was right now instead of many months ago, I would have written something along the lines of "strongest possible oppose." This AfD- like 99.9% of AfDs- has nothing to do with "fairness". There's no vast conspiracy, there are no editors going behind your back to get rid of your work, and you should be ashamed for 1) claiming ownership of an article and 2) claiming other editors are acting in bad faith without any support for that claim (besides disagreeing with them). -- ] 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Don't know anything about an RfA coming up, mine was over a year ago, and I never claimed ownership of the article. I was just fighting to defend it and, as explained many times, I posted here becuase I didn't know where else to go and was wondering what recourse one had if an article was unfairly nominated for deletion. I also never abused my admin powers and didnt block voters and won't recreate the article. I did put some of it on my user page to save the images and will try and rebuild it into a better article. I am ashamed of nothing, not my contributions to Misplaced Pages nor my life in the real world. -] 15:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The images will '''not''' be fair use on a subpage your user space. As an administrator, again, you should know this. And the pedant in me has to point out your RFA was ], not over a year ago. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I am not displaying any of those images on my user page, since I am very aware of the regs about that (had another huge disute about that one, but thank goodness it has quieted down). And, okay, it was 11 months ago, excuse my bad math and poor memory, I thought it was longer. -] 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(edit conflict) Yes, sorry - was about to amend my comment as I did notice you had just inlined the images, which is okay, I believe. Although there are users with a better crasp of fair use than I who can say whether or not it's ok to keep the images stored in a big gallery if the article they are hosted on were deleted. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Husnock, I suspect by now that you realise you have made a bit of a fool of yourself. That's no big deal, I don't think I've done that for - oh, at least several hours. I suspect, too, that you now see that your action was quite likely counter-productive, since a number of us who went to the AfD from here have read the article and find it - problematic, to say the least. Fancruft is another term which, I think, expresses precisely how a number of us feel about conjectural articles on minor facets of fictional subjects which are essentially undocumented outside of the fan community. I thought there was a Star Trek wiki somewhere for this kind of stuff? It certainly does not fit within our policies, and the purported basis for bringing it here is, to my reading, misguided at best. Not that I blame you for working to keep an article you've put effort into, but you really should be more willing to accept the actions of others at face value rather than trying to read something into it, and comparing this article to ], as you appear to do in the AfD, is absurd to say the least. I'm sorry this thread got resurrected, I deleted it because I thought it was going to end up with you digging your own hole deeper, and I believe that is exactly what happened. Not an edifying debate. And now, friends, I suggest we walk away and leave our comrade to ponder the law of unintended consequences. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| No I dont think I made a fool of myself. I defended an article to the best of my ability and will write a better one that will be able to withstand a VfD. As for the Jesus Christ reference, I never compared my article to Christ, I said that there had once been a nomination for deletion on Jesus Christ and I was asking what course was there to have the validity of an AfD reviewed while the vote was still going on. I stand by every action and defend every word. -] 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Betacommand just closed the AfD as a bad faith nom. This seems incorrect and uneccessarily out of process. ] 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't say I'm sad but it does seem strange. I thought for sure the article was a goner and had made plans for a complete re-write. -] 16:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree that the early closure was a bizarrely bad idea. A few people mentioned this to Betacommand but he seems to be sticking to his guns. ] ] 16:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| And now an over the closure. I wasn't going to vote, but I agree with Joshua and Friday that the early closure seems out of process and bizarrre. ] ] 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Please stop closing this discussion early. The guidelines for early discussion closure can be found at ], ''none'' of which apply to the discussion.''' There is clearly an on-going discussion that will require more than ''a mere 4 hours'' to achieve consensus and to cover the points raised. AFD has minimum 5 day discussion period for a reason, and the presumption of a "keep" result by {{admin|Betacommand}} and {{admin|Bastique}} after 4 hours is just as bad as the presumption by {{user|Husnock}} of a "delete" result after 2 hours. Please follow the guidelines and let the discussion proceed normally. All of the discussion about the closure is taking the debate away from what it should be about: the article, its sources, and how our policies apply. ] 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I concur: this is not a speedy keep (and I'm not sure that anything needs to be a speedy keep in the first place). If a bad faith nomination were to occur, it would mean that a person did ''not'' believe that an article violated the deletion guidelines but nominated anyway, simply to harm another user. '''If''' that were to occur, the "voters" wouldn't go along with it. Removing nominations is shady business. By the way, the Star Trek wiki or site is ], isn't it? ] 01:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *They would if the users dislike material of a certain fictional universe. - ]|] 10:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Do you really think that the voters, and enough of them to get preponderance, would act so reflexively? Even if they did, the closer should be reading the arguments rather than the votes, and if people only "vote" with "''Star Trek?'' Pbbbt! ''B5'' rules," then it will be a clear keep. It didn't look like that was the case, here. ] 11:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Illustrative comics == | |||
| ] | |||
| There is a ] dedicated to creating illustrative comics for articles, such as the one on the right. An editor on the Village Pump disputes this practice, calling it clutter. Do we like this idea or is it not encyclopedic? Please respond on the wikiproject's ]. (]) 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think they're brilliant. I'd like to see an illustrated version of ]. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very clever. I'm sure that will impress our critics. ] 16:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :They're brilliant, high-quality, inspired, clever illustrations—that belong in some other project. They really are superb, but I don't think that they suit our encyclopedic style. I wish the artist the best of luck with his Wikibook or other publication. ](]) 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm racking my brains to justify how they could fit in. After all, we do have spoken word versions of articles, although that's more of an "access for all" thing. They certainly could go on Wikibooks but be linked to on via a little template on their 'parent articles'. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: This may make more sense to bring up somewhere on meta. ] 16:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely a link on the talk page is enough. ] 16:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Having a custom drawing in a comic-related article like ] might be defensible; after all, the illustrations in science articles are often conceptual illustrations, and regarding ] specifically, any actual image will be copyrighted and fair use, so a non-fair use image might be preferable. However, I can not see any value in an article about non-comic related topics. Is there a kids wikipedia or wikipedia junior? ] 16:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, I agree completely with TenOfAllTrades says. Delightful, well done, and not suitible for Misplaced Pages articles. -- ] 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I raised 5 points on the village pump (not just "calling it clutter"), I'll add them here. | |||
| # The images are just not right for encyclopedic articles, even just as links (they are cartoons after all). | |||
| # The template used to distribute the images is clearly a self reference. | |||
| # The whole idea seems very spammy/self promotion. | |||
| # The idea does seem to have been discussed at all. | |||
| # We already have too much template clutter as it is. | |||
| Maybe the community can consider links on talk pages, or even a new illustrated wiki or something. ] 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If all of the illustrative comics tend to be of the same quality as the image to the right then they surely will be brillant additions to the project. Bravo! ''(]])'' 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mightn't it be possible to put them on Commons (where they surely fit the inclusion guidelines), and then link to them with a sister-project template? --] 17:17, 30 November 2006 (]]]) | |||
| ::This is a well-recognized panelological genre and is not limited to children's literature (see for example '']'' by ]. Whether this format is suited for Misplaced Pages articles is a separate question, of course, but the intellectual level or complexity of the contribution doesn't correllate to the format. ] 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This isn't spammy/self promotional at all since if you notice it isn't the author who is inserting them. I think they are fine to be linked to, and where it fits, added fully.] | ] 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}} | |||
| :::Actually, if you'll notice, the author ''is'' repeatedly inserting the images. Regardless, the main question is are they suitable. ] 18:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠]♠ ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft == | |||
| The ] comment (which I understand was intended to be sarcastic) actually got me thinking. Using comics as illustrations will usually be inappropriate in an encyclopedia (except in an article on a comic), but, if done right, they could be appropriate in WP space to illustrate policy, guidelines, etc. ] 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it. | |||
| :Note that Commons does this on their image licencing page:]. ] 01:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so. | |||
| Comics have the problem that the text in them is not editable. This creates an encyclopedia anyone can edit, except for text that has been cleverly made read-only by burning it into an image. Not good for finding consensus. ] 18:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Although the comic above is pretty boring, this kind of simple illustrated example would work well on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. - ]]] 01:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page. | |||
| *'''Eek!''' Lordamighty, the last thing we need to do is try to take our articles ''more'' toward the Classics Illustrated mode. It's wonderful that people like drawing pictures, and a fully graphic encyclopedia ''somewhere else'' is an idea. It is NOT right. This is such a prima facia bad idea that we really shouldn't have to debate it. ] 02:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of. | |||
| : Putting these on simple, or creating a wikia or somesuch to host an illustrated encyclopedia, could provide a nice home for these. If this had just been proposed in text, without an example, I would've said it was a terrible idea, but the illustrations are just too well-done ''not'' to use them somewhere. The popularity of the ''cartoon guide to...'' series (I've heard of ''Cartoon Guide to Genetics'' being used as a high school textbook!) indicates an existing market for this sort of thing. Also nth-ing the idea of doing similar things for policies and guidelines in wikipedia space, or corresponding dicta on meta. ] 03:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page? | |||
| The page says "In cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation". Is it? The guy is Tampa-based, so it seems probable. | |||
| <small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]? | |||
| Maybe it doesn't belong on "en.wikipedia.org", but as an experiment, I can see trying out a "cartoon.wikipedia.org" space. Creating the policy pages, as someone put it, would be a bear, though I look forward to seeing how he'd handle ]. --] | ] 06:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that his cartoons would work great as a WikiReader type project on Misplaced Pages. - ]]] 17:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Caricatures instead=== | |||
| :As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| What would people say to the suggestion that we ask the artist in question to perhaps create caricatures of people for whom finding free to use photo's is hard? This would allow us a free to use image and make sure any copyrighted images of such people were used only when fair use really did apply, for example when discussing a particular image or where the image illustrates a point. Any thoughts? ] <small>]</small> 22:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] | ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Interesting, but could have NPOV issues based on how the people were depicte. For example, if Ross Perot's ears were shown as larger than they are would that be an issue? How close to actual proportions should they be? etc. However, it is an interesting idea. ] 07:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::If someone did a sketch based on an unfree image, but releasd the sketch via GFDL (or the appropriate CC one for Misplaced Pages), would we be allowed to use this image? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 43.249.196.179 (again) == | |||
| :This is ''sort of'' an old discussion. We have consistently favored line art for things that we either cannot or should not present photographs of (various anatomical features and organs, e.g.), and this would be little different. It would be a neat thing, as a stop-gap, if a skilled free hand depiction were used. As for the copyright status, I am no lawyer, but I really, really doubt that it would stick, if this were a wholly new, though "inspired" portrait. After all, most paintings are based on previous paintings, photographs, etc. If a portrait painter did the work from a photo instead of making the sitter pose for days at a time (as is usually the case these days), that painter would be unable to claim copyright of the painting, unless it were the case that working from the photo did not carry with it rights to the photographer. ] 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Legally, I think caricature is protected from defamation law by being for the purposes of satire. Regarding the NPOV point, maybe it would inspire people to get Misplaced Pages compatible images? Going a little further though, we used to, in the UK, have a programme called ], which used puppetry to caricature, and politicians and celebrities actually felt honoured to have been caricatured in such a manner. There will always be the danger of NPOV debate about images on some scale, for example if we illustrate an article on Ross Perot showing him doing something illegal, even if that's the only free to use image we have? ] <small>]</small> 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The artist insists his name be on the images so the images are not free enough for wikipedia. How many useful images have been deleted because they were not free enough? And now this with the guy's '''name''' on each one??? Take it to Wikia. It will fit in nicely between two advertizements. ] 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors. | |||
| ::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : You're wrong. The license is suitable, why should we remove his name from the artwork? It's a Creative Commons license which asks for attribution, even if you removed his name from the image, you'd still have to let people know who drew it. Hence, why remove the name? - ]]] 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Incivility at ] == | |||
| :: Yeah, he's got a fairly good, secure job as a newspaper layout designer, he's not using this to promote himself and become a fulltime cartoonist, a very unguaranteed profession. -- ] 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| @] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is a wonderful idea, if it is not compatible with Misplaced Pages, contact me and I will personally set up a private Wiki running ] for this project. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proxy vandals? == | |||
| :I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ] ] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ] ] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ] ] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages. | |||
| :But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}} | |||
| :::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}} | |||
| :::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Wikibooks has had troubles in the last few days with multi-IP vandalism attacks which include full or partial page blanking and nonsense insertion. Misplaced Pages has at least one of these listed as anon proxy (see ]). Could someone fill me in on how this was discovered? If that's the case, then we (wikibooks admins) have a good record of a large number of IPs exhibiting this behavior. | |||
| :Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Adding/clarifying: we don't have a big vandalism problem like wikipedia does, so things like this stick out a little more. --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 15:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material == | |||
| :Unless you are running a proxy scanner, which is the best way, one of the quickest ways to determine if it is an open proxy is to google the IP. If it shows up on lists of proxies and blacklists, and also if the same vandalism comes from IPs which are widely separated geographically (e.g. one is in Brazil, the next in Thailand, ...) then that's a pretty good ] for a proxy. ] ] 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| * {{la|Naomi Seibt}} | |||
| After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, will do. Would y'all like to be notified when we find them? --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Topic ban appeal == | |||
| :::I think that wouldn't hurt. You might also check out ] and the ]. Good luck! ] ] 16:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::LOL... we check it all the time, and are quite grateful that you guys do all that good work for us :). --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored. | |||
| *:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects. | |||
| *:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did: | |||
| *:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart == | |||
| == Roller Coaster Legalities == | |||
| {{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| It has come to my attention that on several wiki pages having to do with ] and ] there are links to websites with Point of View footage of aforementioned rides. The POV videos are EXTREMELY illegal and putting them on this site only endorses breaking state and federal laws. In some cases, such as disney rides and attractions, the information on the videos are coprighted. I am wondering what can be done about this. {{unsigned|Homsar727}} | |||
| Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Links to sites which violate copyright are forbidden, and should be removed when found. ]|] 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Um, could someone explain why these videos would be illegal? I'm not seeing it. ] 19:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — ] ] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :: I expect that Disney et al will ''claim'' that photographing inside their indoor rides (Pirates of the Caribbean etc.) violates their copyright on the artistic depictions inside. This may be true, but then (particularly for an encyclopedia article about that ride) there's a moderate fair-use claim to be made. Even for rollercoasters there's (in theory) an issue, as ] probably doesn't apply, as the photos are taken from inside the park and inside the rollercoaster car (private property both). At least for rollercoasters this seems like copyright paranoia. -- ] | ] 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The fair use claim isn't relevant since these are outside sites. Maybe someone should go bug Brad. ] 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Andra Febrian report == | |||
| ::I seem to recall that this is one of those weird areas in US law, where even though taking the photos might be a crime in some jurisdictions (e.g. trespass) if they have signs and the like saying no photography, that nonetheless distributing photos that you took is not generally a crime (absent some more specific copyright or false light issue). However, I'm not entirely sure about that. I know there are detailed discussions of this online. ] 20:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| "Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has: | |||
| - caused many edit wars <br/> | |||
| - deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/> | |||
| - not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/> | |||
| - not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/> | |||
| I request that the user is warned. | |||
| ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Mr.Choppers warning request === | |||
| :::You can't use a picture of a person without a ], except in some situations (usually "editorial use", which probably doesn't apply to an encyclopedia). Ditto for physical stuff like an amusement ride or a museum: one needs to obtain a ] in these cases. See http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/ and others. If the source of an image can't produce a necessary release, then even if the copyright is solid, the image should be nixed. Whether or not linking to such images is in itself a bad thing is unknown to me. ]? ] 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/> | |||
| '''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/> | |||
| '''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/> | |||
| '''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/> | |||
| '''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/> | |||
| <br/> | |||
| I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12) | |||
| :Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan == | |||
| ::::A) In the US, model releases are generally not needed in noncommercial contexts (i.e. Misplaced Pages). B) As your own reference acknowledges, there has never been a case where the failure to have a property release resulted in any legal liability. They are a feel good measure to insure against the possible but uncertain risk that such liability could exist. C) Any releases would be the responsibility of the photographer. I don't see it as realistic for Misplaced Pages to ask every site we link to for documented release forms (that may not even be necessary) before choosing to link to that site. Contributory infringment in copyright law only attaches if we know (or a reasonable person should have known) that the linked to material was a violation. There may be some gray here, but I note that major sites devoted to rollercoasters include these sorts of user submitted videos, and absent some more definitive resolution I would assume it is okay for us to link to them as well. ] 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Already closed. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of ] at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)|Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions}}. ] (]/]) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Cannot draftify page == | |||
| :::::Model releases are not required for '''editorial use''' -- last I checked, most newspapers, magazines, etc, are intensely commercial enterprises, and regularly use non-released images of people and things under this rubric. Would Misplaced Pages qualify? Maybe, maybe not: I have no idea. And if Misplaced Pages is willing to entertain the risk of using an image without a "property release" in hand, what can I say? It's your risk, not mine. And finally, while the responsibility of collecting the releases is on the photographer, virtually all users of images today ''demand these releases from the photographer'' because they know there can be no valid license to use the image without a valid release. Whether or not it is "realistic" for Misplaced Pages to do this is completely beside the point: this is how the Real World works at this time. Looking at all of this, I'd focus more on the editorial use stuff. Is an encyclopedia similar enough to (say) a newspaper? Does Britannica obtain releases for identifiable people/property in images they use? ] 13:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Remove PCR flag == | |||
| ::::::No, I said what I meant: non-commercial use. Model releases are not usually needed in '''either''' non-commercial or editoral uses. And keep in mind, we are talking about links to other sites, not images on our site. ] 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == "The Testifier" report == | |||
| :::How it is a trespass? You paid the admissiont icket and there isn't a "no trespassing" sign or anything like that: they want you there. ] 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Problem with creating user talk page == | |||
| ::::It depends on how the law is written. In some jurisdictions it is trespass (or some similar crime) to do things while on private property which you were explicitly told you couldn't do while there. ] 04:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ] (]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I suppose that it is possible that someone could claim that a photograph, or video, of an amusement park ride is a ], and maybe someone already has, but, frankly, I think this outside the scope of our unwillingness to promote sites that infringe on copyright (and, incidentally, our ability to reasonably police). We also don't need to worry about property releases, which are the responsibility of the photographer to acquire, usually as a defence against some future claim of wrongdoing on their part in order to have gotten the shot. As Zoe said, if you find some site that is infringing on copyright, remove the link, but it isn't obvious what is special about amusement park rides or how what the original poster appears to be discussing is "extremely illegal". ] 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh I am guessing you have the wrong meaning of POV. It doesn't mean biased, it means actually from the point of view of someone on the roller coaster, like a first-person shooter (FPS) is from the point of view of the shooter. If that makes any sense. --] 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::He used the abbreviation POV, I would assume that referred to the Misplaced Pages policy or at least points of view in the philosophical rather than physical sense. Using the abbreviation POV to mean physical point of reference is rather non-standard and ambiguous to say the least. --] <small>]</small> 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, sorry, this is you being parochial: '''our''' usage of ] is the non-standard usage, which is why—if you hadn't noticed—we have to explain it to visitors here. Also, if you had actually read the original comment, it's reasonably clear that "POV" was being used to abbreviate "Point of View" to avoid spelling it out in full each time. HTH HAND —] | ] 08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: |
:::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::::No. It is clear from the context (at least for those of us who have taken media studies classes) what ] means here. ] 08:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::He's a newbie. I'm pretty sure he does mean it in the real world, first person perspective sense. ] 00:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 == | |||
| :I believe that "POV footage" means videos taken while on the ride, showing the riders' point of view. The danger of a heavy camera flying off into an amusement park would explain why such videotaping would be prohibited. -] · ] · 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] from the past month (December 2024). | |||
| == UBX help == | |||
| <div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> | |||
| I'd like to ask an admin to go the undelete page for ], and copy its content to ]. I moved the HTML userboxes back to template form from my userspace, but I forgot to do so for html-2. I then put a speedy deletion tag on the page in my userspace, forgetting that I forgot to copy and paste the content to the template. —]]]<sup>]</sup> 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| :Done. <sub>└</sub> <sup>''']'''</sup> / <sub>''<font color="black">]</font>''</sub> <sup>┐</sup> 20:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks! —]]]<sup>]</sup> 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
| == Repeated Vandalism == | |||
| :] ] | |||
| The IP address 12.26.6.2 has been used repeated by vandals over a long period. Temporary blocks have not solved the problem. {{unsigned|75.67.142.56}} | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| :Please use ] for vandalism reports - they're often faster to respond than when posting here. In this case, the IP has already been blocked; it's a school IP, however. ] <small>]</small> 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| ] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] who was blocked for 3 months (to see previous discussion go ]) is now editing as an IP on his userpage re-inserting the content. Can we please revert to the previous version and block the page from editing by IP users, if not a full protection? -- ] 00:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| :Yes. ] 02:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ::Thanks -- ] 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Oversight changes''' | |||
| {{debate top}} | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| :Reason prevails at last. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
| Can someone please explain why this is deleted? I can't find an AFD that allowed it. If none occured, please undelete it, and please ask the deleting admin to stop being disruptive. Sorry - I'm about to get married and I haven't got time to fix this issue! - ] 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Following ], ] was adopted as a ]. | |||
| * A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space. | |||
| ] '''Technical news''' | |||
| * The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions. | |||
| ] '''Arbitration''' | |||
| :The page was deleted per ]. Wait...18th nom? You must be kidding me. --<sup>]</sup>''']''' ('']'') 03:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}. | |||
| ] '''Miscellaneous''' | |||
| ::See also ]. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 03:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ] | |||
| :This was not disruption; it was a good-faith deletion. Those who object may log their opinions at the DRV Khoikhoi links above. Meanwhile, congratulations and good luck to you, Ta bu. ] 04:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good faith or not, speedy deletion of pages which have survived prior XfD attempts is forbidden by ], and ] is restricted to non-controversial decisions. This needs to be overturned. --] <small>]</small> 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''speedy deletion of pages which have survived prior XfD attempts is forbidden'' Except it wasn't "speedy deleted": note the reference to ], above? --] | ] 07:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Needs" is a strong word. Take it to DRV if you want; there's little to discuss here. -]<sup>(])</sup> 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::So a few policy pages overrule Jimbo? Thankfully most people seem to realize process for the sake of process is a mistake in at least this once case. Sometimes ]. --] 04:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: In either case, the relevant policy says to take it to DRV, where it currently is... ]]<sup>(])</sup> 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Jimbo doesn't override always. When he is acting ] he generally makes it clear. In this case, if he were acting as such he would have closed the DRV. ] 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Archiving to prevent redundant discussion on multiple boards. This is under discussion on DRV, please direct your comments there. (]) 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{debate bottom}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| == New block reason template: {{]}} == | |||
| {{center|{{flatlist| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }}}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 --> | |||
| == user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation == | |||
| Hi everyone, we now have a new template for "anonymous only" blocks on School IP addresses. Feel free to improve on it. -- <small><span style="border: 1px solid">]]</span></small> 04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| repost from archive: | |||
| The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither. | |||
| {{schoolblock}} | |||
| :Wow! That's really cool! I wish we had one of those before. ]<sup>]]</sup> 06:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ]. | |||
| :Looks good, can you please add it to ], I use that all the time and would find it usefull to have it there. ]] 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| '''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) '' | |||
| :Ew, I like it. It's attractive, polite, informative, concise and useful—everything a template should be. Nice job. —] <sup>]</sup> 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version | |||
| * : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page." | |||
| * : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template). | |||
| * : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}} | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary. | |||
| * JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached" | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary. | |||
| * : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention. | |||
| * : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate. | |||
| * : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate." | |||
| * At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page." | |||
| ** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.) | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it". | |||
| * ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa'' | |||
| :Looks great, thanks Netsnipe! Very clean, friendly, and to the point. ] 08:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template. | |||
| Great work. I think softblocks are a good solution, and hopefully this template will make their use more popular (hint). ] 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.". | |||
| * JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}} | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing. | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit. | |||
| --- | |||
| :Will this mean more anon-only blocking of school IP ranges? If so, I declare this a Good Thing. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 09:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI. | |||
| * Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation. | |||
| As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Very nice. It manages to be polite and informative, and the youngsters shouldn't be offended by it. Well done. ] 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Yup, quality job. And if ] ever identifies the teenaged chat-girls' school I'll be doing the needful myself :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said above. This is an excellent template. It encourages positive contributions to WP, does not BITE, and says everything it needs to say in a very clear and concise fashion. Well done. -- ] 23:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Reposted above from archive, see ] | |||
| Just make sure you don't go adding it to a boarding school's IP(s), or the instructions will be about useless ;D! ] 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page: | |||
| ==Questions== | |||
| ::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| As a new admin I have a couple of technical questions. They may be covered elsewhere - if so, tell me where and I'll read that. | |||
| :::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities. | |||
| # Can we view deleted images - I was looking at DRV and there are a couple of images there that have been deleted (they may of course have been uploaded before the time images could be restored) and when I clicked on the image link it took me to the upload page. | |||
| :::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. | |||
| #*Yes, but only directly. They won't show up say when viewing the page they were deleted from. —] <sup>]</sup> 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| # How can we view deleted pages or previous incarnations of pages when something new has gone over the top? Ie it has been salted or similar. ]] 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| #*Use . —] <sup>]</sup> 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP. | |||
| : |
] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :And the second. Thanks for your time everyone :P ]] 10:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: |
::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the reply though :) ]] 11:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Glad to hear you both figured it out :) in the spirit of helping future admins, would you consider adding a line or two to the ] or ] to clarify the things you found unclear? (]) 12:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law. | |||
| **Good suggestion, will do. ]] 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* To who would this be a threat? | |||
| ::::* Which law? | |||
| ::::* In which country? | |||
| ::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Wow, I am glad you asked. | |||
| ::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store. | |||
| ::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down. | |||
| ::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong. | |||
| ::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==]/]== | |||
| :and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Someone care to take a look at these - i'm going to bed. ]] 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Registration: "too similar" usernames - option to request review by admin == | |||
| *:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room who ]? | |||
| *::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations? | |||
| *::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is a technical suggestion but I raise it here because if implemented it would give an additional task to administrators. | |||
| * Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}. | |||
| It comes out of a frustrating experience with the system which detects whether the username you are trying to register for is too similar to an existing one. The algorithm does not always make decisions which a human being would consider sensible; for example "-Alan-" was rejected because it was too similar to "A$ian". As the number of existing accounts grows, this problem would seem set to get worse. | |||
| :* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]: | |||
| {{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}} | |||
| In the situation I describe, I think it would be good to give people the option of having it manually reviewed. So for example, what about making it respond along these lines: | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}} | |||
| :* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<font color="darkblue">Your proposed username, "-Alan-" has been identified via an automated system as being similar to the following existing username(s): "A$ian", ... .</font> | |||
| ::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged. | |||
| ::<font color="darkblue">To safeguard against possible confusion or impersonation, the requested account has not been created.</font> | |||
| :In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ab}} | |||
| *This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == An inappropriate template being added to many pages == | |||
| ::*<font color="darkblue">To choose a different username instead, click <u>here</u>.</font> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Oct13}} | |||
| A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*<font color="darkblue">It is possible that a human reader may consider that the usernames are not likely to be confused, so you have the option of requesting creation of the account "-Alan-", and an administrator will make the decision. To request this, click <u>here</u>. Note that you will be asked to provide an email address on which you can be informed of the decision, and that your IP address will be included in the email which is sent.</font> | |||
| :Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hopefully not too big an extra admin task, but what are your feelings? | |||
| :I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. — '']''<sup>]</sup> 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Given the sheer amount of usernames we have that are registered by sockpuppeteers or pranksters, I'm afraid that this feature would quickly be flooded under them. (]) 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **It ''is'' possible for an admin to override the system at the moment; if an admin goes to ] whilst logged in and creates an account, I think it gets round AntiSpoof (and IIRC this has happened before). The obvious problem here is that the admin has the password, rather than the user trying to create the account, so some secure means must be needed to distribute the password. --] 16:07, 1 December 2006 (]]]) | |||
| ***It has been done by having the target creating a temporary account - the admin sending the password by email - after which the target changes the password. ] 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Yep, it is definitely possible. You just create an account, which is then tagged as "created" by some other user, like . However, getting an admin to not block it as a reflex is another thing, though... ]]<sup>(])</sup> 06:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Would somebody like to merge some history from a c/p move? == | |||
| ::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— ] ] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| While reverting some page move vandalism , I took a look at the user's ] and noticed that he/she apparantly moved ] to ], then copied/pasted the content of ] onto ] and changed ] into a redirect. ] now has the content, but ] has the history. ] 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm working on it. Any particular reason this wasn't at ] (note capitalization)? If not, I'll move it once things get resorted. -- '']']'' 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.— ] ] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your fast work. I don't see any reason for the capitalization either. Looking at the infobox, I think ] could make sense, but I guess the game was just called Tekken since nobody knew at the time that there would be a second one. So really, either Tekken (video game) or Tekken 1 is fine as far as I can see. There's a ], ], etc. I have no real preference in the matter, though - I only noticed it because I looked at the user's contribution when reverting unrelated page move vandalism. ] 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I moved it to the parenthetical form since there's no "1" on the first game's cover, but that's up to editorial decision, not me (I was just being bold in getting rid of the miscap). Also fixed ]. -- '']']'' 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Tud123 just came back and redid a bunch of his edits (though not the page moves, at least not yet). I have to leave and brave the drive home, can someone explain to him/her why this is a bad idea? -- '']']'' 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction == | |||
| == Question about checkuser from fairly newbie admin == | |||
| {{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction. | |||
| I have a couple users that I'm pretty sure (but not certain) are the same person. They make the same edits and their accounts were created one day apart. They have both voted in the same AfDs on two separate occasions, but their votes didn't (in the first case) and won't (in the second) affect the outcome of the vote. I haven't yet noticed their use in a 3RR violation either. So there's nothing to warrant a checkuser under any of the categories. ] suggests it be taken to ], but what use would that be? I left a note on the userpage of the user who makes more of the edits, speaking authoritatively about my knowledge that he is the same person, but he flat out denied it (and accused me of being the same person as someone else he’s in a conflict with). Do I just have to wait until he slips up further? <sub>└</sub> <sup>''']'''</sup> / <sub>''<font color="black">]</font>''</sub> <sup>┐</sup> 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Keep an eye on him, but in the meantime, I recommend following ]--] 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br> | |||
| :: Advice for future reference: If a user hasn't yet justified a checkuser to tell if they are the same editor then it is often best not to alert them until you can justify a checkuser request. They will now be more likely to be careful about making more subtle socks. ] 21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == I'm being harassed by another user. == | |||
| :This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ] has been posting "sockpuppetproven" templates on my user page all day, and although one check came back as conclusive and I was blocked for 3 days for edit wars, a second check (also requested by Dionyseus) was inconclusive. I am not a sockpuppet, but I have a different opinion over one article, and Dionyseus has reverted every single thing I ever wrote, along with his good buddy, ] a proven sockpuppet who has 3 additional names. I feel I am being singled out by Dionyseus because he just doesn't like that I am trying to write a factual article about a band, and he and Skinny McGee happen to hate one of the members. The template he keeps putting on my page says "Libel." I think that's a really harsh thing for a stupid edit war. Can you please get Dionyseus off my back. And also, you should block Skinny McGee for being a sockpuppet. I got blocked and he did not because Dionyseus made reverts for him and then claimed that Skinny did nothing wrong. Also, Skinny is strongly believed to be, Edward Douglas, a subject of the article itself, and every single edit he's made to date is a HUGE self-promo. Also, I have never made any vandalization or misuse, and that template is for abusive socks. My only fault is edit wars and I am trying to compromise with the other people but they make zero attempts to meet me halfway. Thanks for looking into it. ] 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all the second check was a check to see if ] was your sockpuppet, the result of that check was inconclusive. Second, the sockpuppeteerproven tag must remain because you used your sockpuppet ] to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Third, ]'s sockpuppet ] only made one edit, and the user explained that it is her husband. ] 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Assuming that GuardianZ intends to stick around and be a useful contributor, there is no need to make him wear a ] for some indefinite period. The checkuser request is on file and comments are in the history of his talk page. That's enough, unless he becomes a persistent long term source of trouble. Of course, we wish him well and hope he becomes a productive and useful editor, right? ] 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thought the tag was required for those who have used sockpuppets for disrupting Misplaced Pages. If I understand you correctly, you are saying this is not so. And yes, of course I would love for ] to become a productive and useful Misplaced Pages editor. ] 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The tag is available but you don't have to use it, and placing an embarrassing sign on someone's user page will conflict with the goal of retaining a (hopefully) good editor. As long as he is willing to make an effort to be part of the group, we can politely ignore a little past indiscretion. ] 02:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Understood. ] 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on. | |||
| :::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion. | |||
| :::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block. | |||
| :::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back. | |||
| :::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] backlog doin' great == | |||
| ==Hopefully Simple Request== | |||
| Could an administrator please check the AutoWikiBrowser page ] regarding the requests there that need an administrator to approve. Thanks :)!! ] 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along. | |||
| ==Advice needed== | |||
| That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : Heh heh, isn't young love cute (not to mention pornographic) these days? I'm with you on this one, its likely convenience that leads them to use WP for their ]. You are probably doing them a favour anyway, she'll just break his heart one day or he'll give her an STD he caught in Spain... ;) ]<font color="black">e</font>] 06:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Haha! ]] 08:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I indef blocked and protected. Also left a message on the talk page of the "girlfriend" to notify her the account had been blocked. Just as a courtesy. ]] 10:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Call for mentors == | |||
| :: We seem to be getting more of people misusing Misplaced Pages as personal chat pages. ]-- see the page history. We need to keep an eye out for this sort of thing. -- ] 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I find their reactions very ammusing when we blank the page. "What was that? Didi you do that?" etc. ]] 22:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ] ] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You might want to reprotect. Deletion undoes protection.—] (]) 22:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for the heads up. ]] 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Couldnt find a better template than that one - the user talk page protection one talks about constant vandalism, which i thought was a bit harsh. ]] 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all. | |||
| :I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| == Anon and new editor issue on ] == | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal == | |||
| Could I ask someone to take a look at this article and consider the repeated changes that have been made to it in the last day or so? Someone has been pasting a massive, unencyclopedic and unsourced chunk of text in over the sourced article; I bagged it on RC patrol last night a couple of times and left a message for the anon, and other editors have been reverting it as well, but a new user has started on it now, and I'm at three reverts and don't want to break it. The anon and the new user appear to be working on trying to provide a glowing view of the subject with their changes, including changing the labeling of the image in the article, from a look at the user's contribs. Much appreciate the assistance. ] <small>]</small> 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I stand corrected; the new editor worked on the article a week ago as well, making changes to remove discussion of controversy regarding the subject before being reverted. ] <small>]</small> 03:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reverted and sprotected it. ]] 03:10, 2 December 2006 (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) | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Fresheneesz may be placed on probation if he continues to disrupt policy pages. Such action shall be by a successful motion at ] by any member of the Arbitration Committee after complaints received from one or more users. | |||
| * '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation == | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee --] 03:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Deleted contributions request == | |||
| This user seems to either have decided to become a vandal, or has allowed the account to be taken over. I have given it a 1 day block to prevent damage to the account, and will look back before then. What do others think? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 05:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| : Seems like a good move. Perhaps a vandal has temporary access via an auto login. ]<font color="black">e</font>] 06:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::No e-mail address set up. Odd--seems to be generally a productive sort and limited to one, non-controversial subject area (albums/bands)--not the type to turn sour (though I do remember his unfortunate sense of humor in connection with the February wheel war). Perhaps it's--as Rockpocket suggests--the "drunken roommate syndrome." ] 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :How should I confirm he has control of the accoun again if there is no e-mail? Should I just let the 24 hour block expire then check back, or should I extend it? My instinct tells me that if the account has lost control for more than a couple days that I should just block the account indefinetly until evidence is provided. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] == | |||
| == {{Userlinks|BhaiSaab}} == | |||
| {{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{Userlinks|BhaiSaab}} is a Wiki Stalker who is actively engaged on a serious campaign of ] and provocation towards editors that he disagrees with . User:BhaiSaab has by his own admission gone as far as '''calling the real life work place of other Misplaced Pages editors to harass them''' , which I consider to be '''psychotic''' and '''dangerous''' behavior and which could lead to serious confrontations with those editors. Rather than engaging other editors he disagrees with User:BhaiSaab consistently stalks them in Misplaced Pages and tries to build some sort of case against them to try to get them blocked or worse. For those who wish to read more about User Bhaisaab they can go ]. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person == | |||
| User:BhaiSaab is a very disruptive user, who is under a pending 1 year block and pending a 1 year block for editing religion related articles continues to edit war and try to provoke 3RRs ,,. | |||
| The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| User:BhaiSaab is tying up administrator time with his continuous ] trying to rope other editors he disagrees with into arbitration and wiki proceedings. | |||
| :Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s> | |||
| Can anything be done to deal with this disruptive editor?--] 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : There is already an ArbCom case dealing with this issue. I don't know why you have brought up the issue again. Is there any specific incident that you want administrators to look at? If not, then you too are tying up administrator time. - ] (]) 05:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not trying to waste your time, just asking for help on this.--] 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is seriously ] which {{Userlinks|CltFn}} is bringing up merely as a defense technique in response to ] that ] initiated over CltFn's behavior. ''(]])'' 05:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking. | |||
| :::No, Netscott , It would be appreciated if you did not jump to conclusions, I brought this up because User:BhaiSaab is stalking my edits as you can see . --] 06:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Stalking your edits? And you provide a link to the history of ] where BhaiSaab is editing in response to your edits there? Sorry but that is a rather ridiculous thing to pin your accusations of stalking on. Most any editor (and particularly Muslims) editing on Islam topics are likely to have the portal pages ]ed and respond to edits there accordingly. ''(]])'' 06:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I do not understand why the unhelpful response, but thanks anyway.--] 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I have posted some evidence that substantiate CltFn's claim that BhaiSaab's Wiki-stalking him ], and if we look at the of the "did you know.." template that CltFn now mention, then it is even more clear that we are talking about a case of ongoing Wiki stalking and not an old or resolved issue. CltFn makes an edit here: and 12 hours after BhaiSaab makes his first edit to the template in almost 3 months: -- ] 09:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Karl Meier, ] was the to have ever edited on the ] page. He was editing there long before ]. Let us not forget that ] allows for "]". From looking at ] against ] as well as the ] (note ]'s commentary in particular) it's arguable that BhaiSaab was, "checking up on ] ] to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy". ''(]])'' 09:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Netscott knows what he's talking about. I have this page on my watchlist as with all other portions of the portal. I edited the portal way before CltFn did. And yes, I do check on CltFn's edits to "fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy" considering his bad faith edit history with sockpuppets. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The truth about this matter is that BhaiSaab has hounding CltFn for months and months because he doesn't agree with his strong personal pro-Islamic and anti-Semitic views. Misplaced Pages's policies doesn't allow anyone to follow another editor for months and months attacking the editor on every possible occasion, and if BhaiSaab has some genuine concerns that can survive the attention of a broader range of participants in this project then he should indeed bring them to the attention of a broader range of Wikipedians instead of trying to drive and harass CltFn off the project. Another fact is that is that BhaiSaab haven't been editing the mentioned template for months before CltFn made his edit, and only a few hours after BhaiSaab made his revert. It might be a coincidence, but I doubt that is the case, considering all the other times he has followed CltFn around reverting his edits. BhaiSaab has a long history of Wiki-stalking, and has even brought his harassments against users that he doesn't agree with to peoples workplaces. BhaiSaab's constant nit-picking against CltFn and a few other users that he has targeted is against everything that Misplaced Pages's policies regarding stalking is about. -- ] 14:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::C'mon Karl. We all know where your loyalties are. When Gren mentions the anti-Muslim brigade, which group of editors do you think he's talking about? The RfC is just attempting to bring his edits to the consideration of a larger group, and then you say its "harassment." What nonsense is that? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Quit making personal remarks and bad faith accusations. I have never said creating an RfC is harassment. Try to read what I write above. It's about you stalking and hounding Wikipedians that you disagree with on the project and sometimes even outside it. -- ] 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. == | |||
| == Is there a way to root out sleeper socks? == | |||
| {{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This is probably a dumb question but is there a way to root out sleeper socks? Someone is obsessed with the ] article. (Apparently someone named ]). I got involved when I undid full protection but the repeated IP vandalism was so frequent that I sprotected. Now he's just using sleeper socks to continue. Is there a way to root out the rest of the sleeper socks before we have to go back into full protection? Maybe ] folks can determine which accounts were created by the IPs that are attacking the article? Or is it too fruitless since the IPs are so dynamic anyway? —] (]) 06:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Now an IP {{IPlinks|2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B}} has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. ] (]) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Hide this racist edit. == | |||
| :Yes, we may be able to find them with checkuser. File a request at RFCU and we'll take a look. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ]</span> 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people. | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Questions from a newbie admin == | |||
| :That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| (Hi everyone, by the way!) The user {{vandal|NoCarrier}} is currently in the 1-month phase of an increasing series of blocks, but keeps disrupting his talk page (removing warnings, adding spurious RfUs complete with forged endorsements of an administrator, etc.) even after a final warning by me not to do so. My questions are: | |||
| :Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * How do I extend his block to the talk page? Do I protect it or is there another way? ] doesn't tell. | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| * Would a temporary or indefinite extension of the block be appropriate here? | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| Thanks, ] 06:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If he's been warned and banned several times, and has shown no interest in improving the encyclopedia, its time to kill the account. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 06:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well... I'll leave the account-killing to someone else, if one feels that's necessary. I just protected the page and added {{t1|usertalk-vprotect}} to the top of it. The person should hopefully be calmed by the conclusion of the month-long block. -- ''']''' 06:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I concur. In other cases it would be appropriate to protect his talk page, providing he has had good time to lodge an unblock request. Once that is denied, then there is no reason why it shouldnt be protected. for the duration of the block when they are causing so much disruption (in my opinion anyway). ]] 06:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks for the help! ] 06:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think we have the textbook example of ]. He has made no other edits other to add the Yahoo! link to ], and has been warned repeatedly.—] (]) 07:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin prohibits to delete copyright links == | |||
| == Vulgarity/bad language at beginning of "African American" article == | |||
| {{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites): | |||
| The first sentence of the Misplaced Pages entry for African American is as follows (derogatory n-word censored): | |||
| "Gogo Dodo is a stupid n*****. is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa." - http://en.wikipedia.org/African_American (12/02/2006, apprx. 7:23 AM GMT) | |||
| * | |||
| Not only is this a terrible word to use and a terrible word to use given the subject, it appears to be a personal attack and should be fixed/edited. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}| {{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
| * | |||
| Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. ] (]) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Not sure when you saw this but there was a spate of vandalism earlier on that article. As it stands currently there's no further problem. ''(]])'' 07:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| ::Yes. As we often say, vandalism like that doesn't last long. A minute at most. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 96.230.143.43 == | |||
| == Problems with ] == | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Within the past month, I rewrote ] as ] and ], which were both redirects to ] before my edits. Since then, this is what has happened to ]: | |||
| ::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == StoneX Group Inc. == | |||
| #I turned ] into a redirect for ] (the larger of the two galaxies in the pair). | |||
| #I nominated ] for deletion on the redirects for deletion page. The nomination failed because of concerns about preserving the edit history and maintaining the link for external web sites. | |||
| #] was turned into a disambiguation page. | |||
| #Someone else saw the disambiguation version of ], thought it was stupid, and attempted to PROD it. | |||
| #The PROD failed because of the significant edit history of the article. | |||
| #The article was nominated as an AfD. | |||
| I’m concerned about the page at ] | |||
| At the moment, the discussion on the AfD is still continuing, although the issue is confusing. I think the outcome that most people would like to see is the following: | |||
| There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Keep the current text within ] and ]. | |||
| :Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Preserve the edit history of ] somewhere. | |||
| *Delete ] itself. | |||
| == Permissions Removal == | |||
| Assistance and advice from an administrator would be helpful. I would also like advice from an administrator on how to perform this kind of action in the future. Misplaced Pages contains several articles on pairs of galaxies that could be split like this one. (Perhaps Misplaced Pages needs a "Requested split" mechanism, which I would be willing to assist with creating.) ] 11:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. Thank you. — ] ] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I just found that Misplaced Pages has a ]. The information at WP:SPLIT, however, did not address the issues brought up with ]. I would still like advice on splitting pages like ] in the future. ] 12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ftools is back! == | |||
| Have many edits been made to the separate articles since the split? If not, I would suggest deleting one of the separate articles, revert the double article to before the split, move it to the article you deleted, and then remove all the text that's in the article you didn't delete. The article that wasn't deleted should then link to the moved article somewhere (on the talk page, probably) so people can see who made what edits. --] 13:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Neither of the single articles look like each other, nor do they look like the double article before the split. I rewrote the single articles, with only some general information, transwiki links, and external links being used from the double article. (The double article was poorly written and lacked references for some of its information.) The edit history of the single articles, however, is not very extensive; only 6-8 edits have been made to each article. | |||
| :{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Would it be possible for an administrator to do the following steps in the following order? | |||
| :Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*Copy the text of ]. | |||
| :*Paste the text into ]. | |||
| :*Delete ]. | |||
| :*Move ] to ]. | |||
| :*Delete ]. | |||
| :This seems to be a modified version of the proposal by Tango. If it preserves the text of the two single articles, preserves the edit history of the double article, and removes the double article itself, then I think everyone would be happy with the outcome. ] 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think this is done. Here's what I did (slightly different from either of these proposals): | |||
| ::*Deleted ] | |||
| ::*Moved ] to ] | |||
| ::*Restored the deleted edits of ]. They were now buried in among the post-split edits to the dab page. | |||
| ::*Reverted to the correct version of ]. | |||
| ::*Deleted ], which was then a redirect with the only edit by me. | |||
| ::*Oh, and now I'll add a link from the talk page of ]. | |||
| ::Full edit history preserved, dab is gone, everything good. Yes? ] 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, and you asked about what to do in future. If you had ], as in this situation, the best thing would be to move the article to Galaxy 1, cut and paste Galaxy 2 into a separate article, and then put a note on the talk page explaining what you'd done and linking to Galaxy 2 (or linking directly to the history as I did at ]); the problem here stemmed from the double cut and paste. But it was fine to bring it here and have us fix it. ] 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think that's an excellent fix. All the suggestions did pretty much the same thing and I think any of them would have been fine. --] 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == Block appeal for ] == | ||
| {{atop | |||
| An IP, possibly the logged out user (although no way to check without CheckUser) is adding the same content to ] despite numerous reverts. It includes an extlink to a site which seems to glorify paedophilia, amongst other things. Could someone have a look? <font color="#FF0000">]</font> <font size="1">(]) <font color="#00FF00">]</font></font> 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| | status = unblock denied | |||
| | result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't the first time, I believe - if I remember rightly, ] removed a bunch of this sort of garbage from the edit histories of both Propol (main target) and me (collateral damage), earlier this year. !] | ] 20:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. {{u|Aman.kumar.goel}} has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see ]). As you can see in the unblock request at ], they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, {{u|Ivanvector}}, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from ] and ] were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows: | |||
| == {{Userlinks|Lopnore64}} == | |||
| :I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals. | |||
| I indef blocked this user for making death threats, then I protected his user pages for continuing personal attacks. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active. | |||
| :Looks like a valuable contributor to me. </sarcasm> ] <small>]</small> 23:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "{{tq|The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.}}". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked. | |||
| ==Year-long blatant vandalism never caught== | |||
| I must say, I hope we can catch blatant vandalism faster than which no one found. Is there anyway to search for blatant vandalism other that by random chance of us finding it? ''semper fi'' — ] 19:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What you're calling "blatant vandalism" looks to me like a freewheeling comment on a talk page by a registered user who has been a valuable contributor over the past year. That comment begins ''grr i hope i don't accidentally delete this because i can't see a dang thing!'', implying that the editor was having some visual problems. The comment wasn't appropriate primarily because the talk page was a redirect, something (I believe) is fairly unusual. | |||
| :More to the point - the problem might have been caught if there were (a) an automated process for editing a redirect page, or (b) an automated scan of redirect pages to detect any characters on a page beyond the last two "]]'s"". Since neither exists, the answer at the moment seems to be "no" - not for this type of "vandalism". ] | ] 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 3 year block on an IP == | |||
| ] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Is it really appropriate to put a three year block on an IP address as was done ? I could see the one week block since it looks like the user behind it was posting personal information (either real or made up). --] 23:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The IP put personal information in ] and ]. I saw both edits before sending a private e-mail to ]. The edit to Widness introduced \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ in several places on the page. The edit to ] did not, but it's interesting that in the edit summary (which is still visible in the first entry in ) was '''''"HEY HEY, I AM JARLAXLEARTEMIS AND I\'M BACK!!"''''' Note the slash in the word "I'm". Isn't that a telltale sign that an open proxy is being used, in which case the IP should be blocked not for three years but indefinitely? ] ] 23:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :The blocking admin used the description ''(user is idiot)'', which seems like a personal attack. ] 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::First off, the user was acting, if I may say so, quite idiotic. He/she posted the personal information of several administrators/users right onto the AN/I board. The contribs were given an admin rollback. Second, it was almost certainly a proxy, because it changed every ' into a /'; thus it should actually be indef'edx. Perhaps, then, we can avoid a confrontation over this user? ]<sup>]]</sup> 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*:You need to re-check. , AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pardon, I see everything I said was already mentioned above. -]<sup>]]</sup> 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::* I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean ''now'' but I did not from the original posting. ] 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is {{tq|we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing}}, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates {{tq|someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them}}. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. ] (]) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], ] from AKG copied over:{{tq2|Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "{{tq|However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.}}" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for ]), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. ] ] 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. ] ] 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention ] would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it ]ing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with {{u|Ivanvector}}'s assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the ] that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual ''also'' had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. ] (]) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that ] applies here. ] (]) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I warned AKG ] for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.] (]) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To quote what I had said then, "{{blue|I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing.}}" I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there ''were'' multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add ] on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and ] on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. ] 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. ] (]) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::: Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. ] 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. ] (]) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from ]. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. ] 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes. | |||
| *:I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than ''not'' agreeing to it. -- ] (]) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Yes, this is also my concern. I would have ''thought'' that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well ''outside'' that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. ] 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. ] (]) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. ] 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ] (]) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. ] 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. ] (]) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. are are recent examples from this noticeboard. ] (]) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as ''punishment'', but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. ] (]) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. ] (]) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per {{u|Ivanvector}}: i.e. dependent on {{blue|a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction}}. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. ]'']''] 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I find myself agreeing with {{U|Black Kite}} - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. ] (]) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. ] (]) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. ] (]) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. ] (]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). ] (]) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:<s>I would tentatively '''support''' with the TBAN they have now agreed to.</s> I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. ] (]) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support <small>(NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case)</small>. Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. ] (]) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage: | |||
| {{Talkquote|After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from ], I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping {{u|Yamla}}, {{u|The Kip}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Caeciliusinhorto-public}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|Vanamonde93}}. Thanks ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| - ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Would they also consent to the ] topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict) I remember having seen at ] an ip from a school or something similar that is indef blocked. If someone can confirm the ip is an open proxy, it should be indef blocked indeed. Otherwise, personally I don't think such a long block is justified. -- ] 00:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of ] and ], but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. ]] 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. ''']''' (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Very, very '''weak support''' on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support, but''' only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — ] ] 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under ]. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. ]] 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - At the end of the day, the ] has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. ] (]) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --] (]) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. ] (]) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. ] ] 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Import request == | |||
| The simple thing to do here is just to go ask the blocking admin about it. No need to post here first when you are perfectly capable of asking a question of the admin who did it. It is almost certainly though, an open proxy. ] | ] 00:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| I've blocked indefinitely. Nothing to see here; move along. ] ] 00:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The IP should indeed be indef blocked as an open proxy based on that evidence, however the original block description is a personal attack - it doesn't matter that's it's true, ] is not ], truth doesn't come into it. --] 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 == | |||
| :], people. Let's go back to article writing, this is time-consuming and pointless, to argue about a block summary for a troll. – ]] 01:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). ]] 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| : Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. ] (]) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that: | |||
| This AFD needs to be closed. I can't close it myself because I participated in the discussion. It was nominated six days ago by ], who put an unnecessary {{tl|afdanons}} tag on it - I can't really find anything on any ] forums that justifies the tag. The article seems to have improved quite a bit during the course of the discussion. --]] 01:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{ivmbox|1= | |||
| The ] are amended by adding the following section: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ; Coordinating arbitrators | |||
| The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators. | |||
| Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include: | |||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. | |||
| * Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters; | |||
| * Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators; | |||
| * Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters; | |||
| * Organizing related correspondence into case files; and | |||
| * Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions. | |||
| A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator. | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Tommysun}} is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in ] and its subcategories. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| *Tommysun and {{userlinks|Iantresman}} are placed on ]. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at ]. | |||
| }} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Elerner}} is banned from editing ], ], ], and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work. | |||
| *{{userlinks|ScienceApologist}} is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility. | |||
| For the Arbitration |
For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
Latest revision as of 08:28, 11 January 2025
Notices of interest to administrators
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
| 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 14 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 33 | 15 | 48 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 11 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 1 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 28 sockpuppet investigations
- 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 1 requests for RD1 redaction
- 86 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 18 requested closures
- 38 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 11 Copyright problems
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:
I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.
However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:
That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.
- Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like
On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.
, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
I will never use multiple accounts anymore
and that he wants tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
- But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft
I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?
Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace
...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)- I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?
Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)- Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to archive all threads in Talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. Yaris678 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
43.249.196.179 (again)
See their previous thread here, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
- I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243
@Dreameditsbrooklyn and to a lesser extent @Aviationwikiflight have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as these diffs at me, this diff at AWF, and this diff at User:Awdqmb. Is this actionable? guninvalid (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety
I am stating a fact.
and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".
You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
this
you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
- Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
- But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:MOS says:
If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
- WP:AT, which follows MOS says:
Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
- The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?
Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:MOS says:
An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability
No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' asAccident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible
. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place.
... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries
– The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article statedAirliner crash
, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place.
Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ZLEA T\ 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. guninvalid (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Warn both to drop the stick, otherwise, no action at this point. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hands FOARP two trouts You want to hand them out, or me? Buffs (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material
This appears to be done. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After reverting multiple edits that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @FMSky posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: "Put your trash analyses in the appropriate section(s) and stop flooding the lead with citations.". 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, why haven't you done that? --FMSky (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article in question is a contentious topic x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?
How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see this edit from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user FederalElection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll add that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, wp:undue concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as 62.74.35.238 now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. WaggersTALK 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Topic ban appeal
Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. DesertInfo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
- I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
- I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
- This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd say
"racial issues broadly construed"
is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart
Looks like this is done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! GD234 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like Camden Stewart or Camden Music. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" GD234 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GD234: I have moved the article to draftspace at Draft:Camdenmusique. If you have a conflict of interest with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are interested in ensuring that the article is indexed on Google and you uploaded his professional headshot), you must declare it following these instructions. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at articles for creation. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback! GD234 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Andra Febrian report
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many edit wars. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's Editing policy) on many pages that good-intended edits have occurred on
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset.
I request that the user is warned.
HiLux duck — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking into this
Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Mr.Choppers warning request
- This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the WP:Civility rules because:
- calling me a "nuisance" because of own bias supporting others in edit wars that have nothing to do with the user. (WP:Civility) (WP:Civility (second violation this user has performed))
- responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war
- note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that
- also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims.
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, HiLux duck (talk) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
- Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Proposal to vacate ECR remedy of Armenia and Azerbaijan
Already closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a proposal to vacate the ECR remedy of WP:GS/AA at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals) § Remove Armenia-Azerbaijan general community sanctions. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Cannot draftify page
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried to draftify Wuliangbao_Pagoda but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Remove PCR flag
Flag run down. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion."The Testifier" report
Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § "The Testifier" report – voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Problem with creating user talk page
CU blocked as sock by Spicy. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user BFDIisNOTnotable (talk · contribs) to warn them against edit warring with {{subst:uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This particular account was definitely created on this wiki. Graham87 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation
I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per WP:NLT. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with this addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
repost from archive:
The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.
Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Misplaced Pages:Edit war is mandatory
but Uwappa has done neither.
I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.
Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 )
- 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
- 13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
- 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
- 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.
- 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
- 14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
- 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
- 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
- 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
- (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
- 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
- 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa
- 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
- 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
- 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
- 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
- 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
---
- 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
- 14:17, 29 December 2024 Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Reposted above from archive, see User_talk:Uwappa#c-JMF-20250105190300-Uwappa-20250105161700
JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
- I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
- Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.
user:Liz What would you like me to do now? Uwappa (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- To who would this be a threat?
- Which law?
- In which country?
- Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
- It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
- The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
- Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could well be taken as a legal threat), and then immediately go back and revert the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
- Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
- Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read my reasons for being late to this party?
- Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
- Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
- Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
- Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it was. Meanwhile, you're still edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) - Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a chilling effect. When called on it you have continually Wikilawyered instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the sixth time.16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (Their edit note adds 3rd time in 24 hours: are they boasting of a 3RR vio? Zefr undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
.An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
— WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule - Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.
-
- From WP:EW;
Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring
. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:EW;
- To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
- In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was explictly a legal threat. Suggest revoking TPA. @Black Kite: - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
An inappropriate template being added to many pages
- Oct13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_6#Template:Mortal_sin_in_the_Catholic_Church. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've reverted the addition of the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The template as been deleted per WP:G4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see Template:Mortal Sins According To The Catholic Church) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from Oct13 on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. Tarlby 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a RADAR situation here. Beeblebrox 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. Seraphimblade 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction
User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. Misplaced Pages is not a social network. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I find that Ottawahitech (talk · contribs) has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.
As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.
Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. -Lemonaka 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This might be better at WP:AN. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their previous block seemed a little bit like WP:CIR block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. -Lemonaka 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lemonaka: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent IDHT behavior of this user continues on.
- I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
- Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
- Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
- And that's still all they want. They don't want to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, here is the ANI discussion that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --bonadea contributions talk 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.RFU backlog doin' great
I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.
That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to everyone who helped make this suck a little less. Beeblebrox 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Call for mentors
There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Growth Team features/Mentor list about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are assigned a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to all new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- asilvering (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. Nobody (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. JayCubby 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
- I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). JayCubby 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Kansascitt1225 ban appeal
I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:
(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
References
- https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- (mildly involved) Support. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?
ssssshhh. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation
There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Deleted contributions request
Done and dusted. Good work all. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was Thick Sand Motorcycling, which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called How-to/Motorcycling, but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is 62.200.132.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). JJPMaster (she/they) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: The import and merge are Done. Please delete the page now. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: I've deleted the page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: The import and merge are
- @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs didn't exist in their current form until 23 December 2004. This page was deleted about a month before that. —Cryptic 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.WP:NOTHERE behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from User: Astronomical17
Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. Liz 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Astronomical17's talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with Devstacks which is currently at WP:AfD and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my WP:NOTHERE allegation comes from this diff at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? guninvalid (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. User:Cyanxbl) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! Buffs (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person
The pages are Chaudhry Sher Ali Khan and Chaudhary Sher Ali. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? 71.202.215.54 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are they the same person? The date of birth (for Chaudhary Sher Ali) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: diff) it's different...
Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted),it's quite possibly a waste of time. - That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32, this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. Liz 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a WP:TNT kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
- I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a proposed merge, instead of here? WaggersTALK 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.
Sinai and Palestine campaign semi-protected until the 23rd. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by OnuJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 57th Infantry Regiment (Ottoman Empire) and Sinai and Palestine campaign, removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to their usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (
changing Palestine to Israel
) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (
- I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Hide this racist edit.
| WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people. https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 200.80.186.184 (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
|
Admin prohibits to delete copyright links
This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the following topic: MU Online Admin Egilus refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. Nebraska Ivan (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.96.230.143.43
Blocked, and WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is a frequent vandal on the page Devils Tower. I am requesting a block. Drdr150 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback/dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
StoneX Group Inc.
I’m concerned about the page at StoneX Group Inc.
There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Permissions Removal
Rights...left? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! Ternera (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
ftools is back!
I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel
UNBLOCK DENIED AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
- I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
- While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
- My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "
The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.
". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
- Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to re-check. Here, AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see WP:AGF. Nxcrypto Message 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean now but I did not from the original posting. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is
we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing
, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicatessomeone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them
. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "
However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.
" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for WP:AN), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention WP:SHARE would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it WP:SOCKing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with Ivanvector's assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the assertion that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual also had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:
- Support with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that Misplaced Pages:One last chance applies here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I warned AKG in October 2021 for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from arbitration enforcement. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
- I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than not agreeing to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. Azuredivay (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. Lorstaking (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as punishment, but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Ivanvector: i.e. dependent on a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. SerialNumber54129 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I find myself agreeing with Black Kite - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. The Kip 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. Nxcrypto Message 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I would tentatively support with the TBAN they have now agreed to.I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support (NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case). Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:
After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping Yamla, The Kip, Black Kite, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Simonm223 and Vanamonde93. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ratnahastin (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would they also consent to the WP:ARBPIA topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE, but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. Girth Summit (blether) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Very, very weak support on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. Andre🚐 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under WP:ARBIPA. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. Miniapolis 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - At the end of the day, the standard offer has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. Dympies (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --JBL (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. Shankargb (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. Star Mississippi 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Import request
Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24
Special:Contributions/109.172.86.0/24 this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). jolielover♥talk 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:
- Coordinating arbitrators
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.
Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
- Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
- Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
- Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
- Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
- Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.
A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators