Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:43, 23 January 2007 editIsotope23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,870 edits →Can someone look into this?: Comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 December 2024 edit undoRsjaffe (talk | contribs)Administrators55,056 edits →Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3-8) 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
|algo = old(7d)
|counter = 367
|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-2 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive72--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
{{User:HighInBCBot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
----------------------------------------------------------


--><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-->


==IRC admin channel== == ZebulonMorn ==


Hi, {{user|ZebulonMorn}} has ignored continual warnings on a range of topics (manual of style in military icons, minor edit purpose, citing sources, and more recently has ignored consensus on a NPOV on a BLP article). Request admin intervention. --] (]) 21:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops, with a specific mandate to keep Wikimedia IRC channels polite and courteous. Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Misplaced Pages. ] for the Arbitration Committee 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:{{yo|Engineerchange}} can you provide the community with examples linked with ]'s? Thanks. ] (]) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good call. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::{{reply|Deepfriedokra}} Some examples:
::Not enough. The worst offenders are themselves chanops, as demonstrated by logs submitted to the ArbCom. IMO, their removal from the channel is the very least the ArbCom needs to do for the abused community and mistreated individuals. (The fact that the chanops in question are not actually admins should make the removal all the simpler.) What I see in Fred's message, however is '''not even a proposal to remove their chanop privileges.''' Are you serious? ] | ] 02:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
:: - Manual of style on military icons: {{diff2|1260496477}}, {{diff2|1260503015}}, {{diff2|1260347589}}, {{diff2|1260910501}} (each of these edits are after the last warning on their ] on Nov 29)
:::Indeed. Without some community involvement regarding who the IRC chanops are, this is unlikely to make much difference. I'm not sure who the worked-with "leaders" in Fred's message are; is it a secret? &mdash;] (]) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: - Minor edit tag: {{diff2|1260928801}}, {{diff2|1260925564}}, {{diff2|1260877930}}, {{diff2|1260839845}} (each from the last couple days)
:: - NPOV about BLP: {{diff2|1261041427}}, {{diff2|1261024333}}, {{diff2|1261015833}} (user ignored feedback on their talk page and the page's talk page and has continued edit warring)
:: - not citing sources or adding info w/o support: {{diff2|1260938015}}, {{diff2|1260909087}}, {{diff2|1260544947}}, {{diff2|1260147566}}
:: Hope this helps, --] (]) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*I've made several changes to the articles ZM's added to. I would concur that this is POV pushing and it appears he opposes this Sheriff. I have no strong opinions on this individual, but at least some of the claims that he's made are not supported by ] and are in violation of that policy as well as ]. If it continues, a block to get the point across would be appropriate. ] (]) 01:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:ZM has continued to add negative/defamatory material about this individual against the general consensus of the editors involved. At this point, ZM, you '''need''' to use the talk page to come to a consensus. Otherwise, I support ] as suggested by Deepfriedokra for further edits on this page. In addition, ZM has uploaded a CLEARLY copyrighted image straight from twitter and released it under a false license. At this point, ZM's attempt seems to be to besmirch the sheriff (no idea on the motive here). In Any case, a full block would be acceptable as well under ]. ] (]) 23:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Buffs}} I obviously don't know ZM's personal motivations, but for a history of the threats and attacks made against Chitwood during his tenure, please see . <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 15:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*My inclination is a ] from article space that can be unblocked if they answer here.] (]) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Hey! I'm getting in touch with you about a notice. Editing pages is pretty easy, but I'm still figuring out how to navigate the rest, so I'm sorry I put it in the talk page first. I've seen notices and some complaints, so first I should say nothing is intentionally nefarious. As far as the military edits go, I've figured that out, based on ] and ], so I've since ceased. I'm originally from Volusia and still technically have my residency there, so I do feel responsible and knowledgeable about the topics, however, after overwhelming pushback, I was clearly wrong. I don't work for any politicians nor am I associated with any, but there are people I find interesting and think have made an impact locally and should be included, but I get that requires a certain threshold and I was turned down. I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble or get myself blocked. ] was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy until the past few days or so and I haven't had any serious issues that I'm aware of since. I've made many edits since and most have been checked by ]. Happy to answer anything else if needed! ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* Two questions for ]: 1) Do you have any personal connection to John Flemm (who you wrote ] which you then blanked and for some reason moved to {{-r|Draft:John}}) or any other politicians in Volusia County, Florida? 2) Is there a reason that your userpage largely copies ]'s, including the userbox saying how long you've been an editor? (This isn't an accusation of anything against Eyer, to be clear.) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Something about mimicry and flattery, I guess? I'm curious to hear @ZebulonMorn's answer, too. —] (he/him) <small>If you ], add <code><small>&#123;&#123;reply to|Eyer&#125;&#125;</small></code> to your message.</small> 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@], I don't see an answer to Tamzin's question about your userpage? -- ] (]) 17:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Noting I have declined ] on the draft because it is relevant to ongoing discussion here. No objection to G7 once discussion concludes. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Not an admin, but I was involved in previous discussions on the person's talk page, so is it acceptable for me to comment?
*::The user in question has now deleted all past discussions on their talk page. I agree with above complaints that the user should at least be subjected to a partial block from editing articles about any Central Florida government officials. While Chitwood is the most egregious case, this user's entire edit history involves similar types of edits using unreliable sources in order to commit violations of ]. The Chitwood article is not the only problem here, with this same user pushing a POV in the following edit (a "minor" edit?) which had already been removed and reverted . <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I would concur. ] (]) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


:My issues with ZM have been his lack of edit summaries and the unwillingness to engage in discussion with multiple editors who warned him on his talk page, which recently appeared as until he scrubbed the content without responding. Just today, he made this "minor edit" under his own self-stated rationale that "Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy" that he was editing, under, supposedly "until the past few days" but it never should have come this far.
:I didn't even know there was a proposal to speak of, where is this being discussed? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:@] has made a lot of messes for other editors to clean up, which he is unwilling even to talk about, let alone go back and fix, even after being asked multiple times to fix his mistakes. A Full Block is warranted. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm sorry I was unclear on the use of "minor edit', I really didn't think it was too far, but I know better know. As far as that edit is concerned, was any of the information improperly sourced or unimportant? It hasn't been edited other than de-capitalization. I thought it was a good contribution that was similar other information under different offices. I'm really not trying to create "a lot of messes", I'm genuinely trying to contribute. As far as the engaging, that's my bad. I was still learning to figure out how to navigate wiki, but I've gotten better now. I'm not "unwilling" to talk though, I was trying to respond on talk pages for a couple days before I figured out this was the correct location, again my bad. I think a full block seems extreme, but that's not for me to decide. ] (]) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::And, as I posted on your talk page before you ignored my comment and deleted it, please review our policies such as ]. In this edit for example, capitalizing words like "marketing", "full-time", "landscaping", "lifeguard", etc. are unnecessary. Cleaning up your messes like and takes time and effort. When another editor cites a rule that you broke, please read the rule and learn it, instead of joking about "ignore all rules" and making the same violation a dozen more times. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Capitalization errors are clearly non-malicious edits and ], while tongue-in-cheek, is still official wiki policy. I've made over 1,000 edits, most of which remain unedited. If this is really the standard for a "full block", there's no point in anyone new genuinely attempting to edit wiki if they're blocked for capitalization mistakes.
::::Again, I apologize for not understanding what the discussion pages were and the lack of communication. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. ] (]) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|ZebulonMorn}}, can you respond to {{np|Tamzin}}'s questions above? ] (]) 21:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hello! My response to ] was kind of an amalgamation response to a few of the questions from people. I believe it was answered there, but if there is anything more specific I'm happy to answer. ] (]) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::"Ignore all rules", in full, says; {{tq|If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''.}} It does not mean that you can just do whatever you like. If other editors do not agree that your edit improved Misplaced Pages, or was necessary for maintenance, then it is not protected by "Ignore all rules." It does not excuse careless editing or flouting of policies and guidelines. ] 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


It's been a week. Could an admin be so kind as to weigh in here? Regardless of your conclusion ZM doesn't deserve to have this ] indefinitely. ] (]) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid, when arbcom have constantly declined to address rank and obvious incivility on-wiki, they forfeit all credibility in any attempt to extend themselves into IRC. Send out out strong signals that incivility stops on-wiki and perhaps that will filter through to IRC. Until then.....showing teeth isn't going to convince.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:I'll renew my concern... ] (]) 14:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:That's no different to the claim "we have article X which is clearly rubbish, so we cannot delete article Y" often raised by n00bs at AfD. If the Arbcom feel that these relatively simple steps will reduce incivility in IRC, then they should go ahead, not stop because they haven't solved everything on-wiki first. ] ] 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


It's these kinds of edits that continue to concern me. The sheer volume of purported "reliable sources" that are being added by the user and us editors having to search and destroy which ones are valid. The user's continued argument that every source the user adds is "reliable" (see {{diff2|1263412965}}). See {{diff2|1263414344}} - both sources appear reliable, but have no reference to the subject, completely ignoring ]. --] (]) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Nonsense. If arbcom have shown a total and continued failure to deal with incivility on-wiki, threatening to come down hard on off-wiki incivility just isn't credible.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::how often have they been presented with on-wiki incivility to deal with it, though? Considering the issues that the channel has apparently given in past/current cases, it seems like they're simply doing what's asked of them. --] <small>]</small> 03:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is the issue actually being raised here, in full public view, and not in private with the parties concerned though ? There's already enough disruption on-wiki concerning IRC channels (and this channel in particular) and as nobody outwith the sysop pool (and a few selected others, I'm led to believe) can see what goes on in that channel, posting about it here is perhaps a little overly transparent. I heartily support any promotion of civility however. <span style="font-family: Verdana; color:#FF0000">--Kind Regards - ] <sup>] ]</sup></span> 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:@] Hey, you might want to check the conversation again and do your own research first. ] (]) 17:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I assume Fred brought it up here to notify us of a change of policy. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::These edits and conversations have been taking place just over the past few hours and are ongoing. It appears you missed both references. It would probably serve us all best to wait until we finish communicating before jumping into the noticeboard, especially when it's clearly premature. ] (]) 17:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{reply|ZebulonMorn}} Respectfully, my comments are not premature; this noticeboard discussion is still active. Your insistence on adding more words to argue your point does not mean it meets ]. For instance, your comment "second source references Paul Terry visiting the school" is an example of a 'passing reference' to a topic, these are not ]. Citing the Facebook page for that preschool is not a reliable source. --] (]) 18:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::There are other ] from the ], ], and the county government. Facebook is just one source. I don't have control over ], which is why were discussing on the nominating page? I'm explaining and defending my edits, as you're supposed to do. I'm also adding further information to the article that's been nominated for deletion, as is suggested to keep it from being deleted. ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


On an AfD for a preschool, they mentioned "The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious" (with sources about Terry), to which I replied "And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? ]." Instead of replying, they decided to add this information to the article, so now we have an article about a preschool containing a whole section about a deputy sheriff who "murdered his 10-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son before killing himself" in 2005, with the only connection being that the same person once visited that preschool in 1999! This raises serious ] issues. As the AfD nominator, I have not removed the info from the article, but it clearly doesn't belong there at all... ] (]) 18:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
All this will start is anoth shit-storm (sigh)--]<sup>g</sup> 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:Removed. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we should work to fix incivility on-wiki too. These proposed remedies are more strict than how misconduct has been handled on-wiki as of late. --] 02:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks! ] (]) 10:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Appeal of my topic ban ==
* This is becoming a joke. Judging from the title of the heading alone shows that we are no different from ]. - ] 02:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=This has been open for two weeks, and {{ping|Stuartyeates}} hasn't edited since the 16th. Given the discussion below, I'm closing this with the following notes:<br>
<br>
(1) The topic ban is not repealed.<br>
<br>
(2) Stuartyeates is '''heavily encouraged to only edit using one account, and one account only'''.<br>
<br>
If (2) is complied with (1) can be revisited in another six months or so. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
TL;DR: on (roughly) the 20th anniversary of joining en.wiki, I'm appealing my years-long topic ban from BLPs.


After creating thousands of biographies (mainly of New Zealanders and/or academics) over more than a decade, on 25 Sept 2021 I created or expanded ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] with material on a then-current race controversy. I then continued editing as normal. Several months later (April '22) an editor raised issues with my edits of that day and I escalated to ]. After much discussion I received an indefinite topic ban from BLPs:
I find a regulation of off-wiki activities by a panel with jurisdiction ONLY over this wiki somewhat disturbing. &mdash; ''']''' '']'' 02:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: '''Stuartyeates is indefinitely topic banned from the subject area of biographies of living persons, broadly construed.''' (see ]).


Since the topic ban I've done some editing of en.wiki (>2,000 edits, some patrols and some barnstars), but I've been mainly active on wikidata (>60,000 edits, no barnstars).
:They aren't claiming jurisdiction, note Fred says they have been working with the IRC leadership. They are simply stating that IRC activity may be considered in on-wiki cases if it is relevant. ] ] 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I accidentally broke the topic ban a couple of times as exemplified by my recent edits to ]: I noticed a mistake on wikidata that was sourced to en.wiki; I fixed wikidata and then en.wiki before realising I wasn't allowed to make that edit and self-reverted (still not fixed on en.wiki at the time of writing). The first time this happened I reported it to the closing admin who indicated that if I caught myself and reverted it wasn't a problem (see ]).
I'm sorry but why is this being discussed ''now''? Efforts have been made in the past few weeks to put a stop to whatever negative activities are occuring in the channel. Frankly, I think most of us support the shutdown of the channel entirely, rather than creating more mess with the same parties, which is what's happening right now. —<b><font color="#00FFFF">]</font>] (])</b> 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Maybe it is time to shut it down. ] 02:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


I'll readily admit that I went harder than I should have on 25 Sept 2021. I a non-BLP for the controversy was the right option. Mouthing off on twitter was the wrong option. I feel that I've done my time for what was clearly a one-off. If the topic ban is removed I'll not repeat that.
::Whether it is shut down or not, the behavior we are trying to stop can easily continue through other means if people really want to do things subtly, but nonetheless I think that shutting the channel down is a poor move. The channel has its uses for immediate issues and things that require administrator intervention. Rooting out the behavior that would not be suitable even on-wiki is definitely a positive step in making the channel more useful so that there is less cause for disruption in the future, though. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Possibly, but discussing administrator intervention issues there is what started all this in the first place. Sensitive foundation/WP:BIO stuff can find a new home, sometimes it's easier to shut something down and start over then trying to fix ongoing systemic problems. But maybe all it needs is an influx of new users/admins with these conversations in mind. ] 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Can someone point me to the discussion that everyone seems to have read, because I am lost here, what is everyone so pissed off about? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::In this case, ignorance is bliss. Just slowly step away and never look back. --] 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::IRC comes up from time to time...buried in ] and ] archives. Some admins are firm believers in it, some editors (mostly non-admins) are vocal against it, and others such as myself qualify to join but decline to do so. The civility aspect dovetails with another recent hot button topic not necessarily confined to IRC. On January 5 I set off a firestorm (quite inadvertently) after I left a civility warning on another admin's talk page. If I'd anticipated how heated some reactions would be I would have handled the situation with greater circumspection, yet the admin I warned wasn't offended and two other editors awarded me barnstars. It sprouted some threads in my most recent user talk archive and the top of my current page if you're curious. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 03:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Full disclosure: I was involved in ] and ]. I have previous appealled this topic ban at ]. The discussion at ] may also be relevant.
*This is not sufficient, in my view. Lest I be counted merely among the "burn it down" camp, let me delineate:
*#''Additional'' ops would be enough if there were a suggestion that there were too few. In fact, in this case, the ones with "ops" have been implicated several times in the incivility.
*#''Additional'' ops are also not going to answer the glaring problem that ''at least'' two people with "ops" are not administrators on en.wikipedia. One of these was implicated in using that IRC channel inappropriately in September of 2006 and then again in December 2006. This is not a one time problem but a serial problem with two or three people.
*#The channel still has no justification, as it is populated by non-administrators as well as being a place only a small fraction of en. administrators ever go.
*#The channel will not be ''capable'' of behaving properly unless the people with control of it understand what it is that they have done that is not proper. So far as I have seen or heard, they still are in the dark about how calling for someone to be "killed, slowly" is bad, and there is no hope at all for them to understand how "let's start a pool on when X will be banned" is improper.
*#The central problem remains undefined. If no one knows what "civility" means, then we're going to have more boots and blocks for someone using a wordy dird while detailed character assassination is cheered on. There is no actual guideline yet for the ops or users to employ for determining when they're acting improperly. In fact, one of the most hostile and reductive and bullying editors I've encountered is up above crying about on-wiki "civility" not being enforced. Obviously, what he means and what Fred means, and what I mean, are different things. He seems to hyperventilate about calling a he a she or a jerk an ass, while I care about trying to get people blocked so that their voices are no longer heard.
*I do think the whole thing should be disbanded, as I cannot see any room for it to ''help'' Misplaced Pages and built in ways for it to damage Misplaced Pages, but that would be merely philosophical if it weren't for the fact that ArbCom cannot act here and now because the people "in charge" are the people in the dock. They do not admit wrong, cannot conceive that they could be wrong, and will therefore not do anything differently, especially in the long term. If this is merely round two of a three round fight, if we have to wait for yet another horrendous case of star chamber blocks and rallying to destroy users, then that's a disgrace that proves that it's not what you do, but who you know. Incidentally, that is the charge trolls make all the time, and it's disgusting that we would make them right. ] 03:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


It is my intention to notify ] of this appeal, since all this is New Zealand-related and I have a long history with those folks. I'll also be notifying the closing admin. ] (]) 09:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Geogre, I think it's apparent that there ''isn't'' a definition of civility that everyone agrees on. Your comment above, "a he a she or a jerk an ass," illustrates the problem nicely. You didn't think anything of it, and still don't, but several people regarded it as one of the meanest, nastiest things ever said by one user about another, ''and the fact that you don't agree does not for one moment diminish the effect that it had.'' ] ] 03:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*And, on the other hand, many people see absolutely nothing wrong with spending hours talking about users who aren't present and talking about how they're all "idiots" and how they should be banned. They see nothing wrong with it still. So, if we were to balance out the two, where would we be: one person saying, of another who says frequently that she is pleased to be able to identify either way, one particular thing about gendered speech, versus three sitting about every night with an enemies list and coordinating provocations, blocks, and actions to generate a ban? You're right, Mackensen, I don't see that there is any comparison at all. One is ''being disagreeable'' and the other is ''trying to interrupt Misplaced Pages.'' One is where all sides may defend themselves (or take revenge, which seems to be the preferred reaction), and the other is where only like-voices can be heard as revenge. That you could be such a blushing violet and see these as anything like the same is strange to me, you are correct. ] 13:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Geogre, you seem to be taking the same line that Giano is: incivility on the encyclopedia is justified by perceived off-wiki conspiracies. Let's say you're right, just for the sake of the argument: Kelly Martin and other persons are conspiring to drive you and Giano off the encyclopedia. How does that, in any way, justify you making the aforementioned statement? An eye for an eye, Geogre? If I allege an off-wiki conspiracy against me by User X, on flimsy evidence, may I start trash-talking them in public? ] ] 13:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*No, Mackensen, I'm trying to illustrate to you the difference between being unpleasant (me) and disliking someone (as I do) and character assassination with the intent of blocking. I am justified in calling you a worm, if I want. That's my opinion, to which I am entitled. I would probably ''hope'' that you would be affronted, but I would have no expectation that you'd ''block'' for that, as '''no policy''' says that anyone may be blocked for expressing an unpleasant opinion. On the other hand, if I spend hours with only my friends in Misplaced Pages Divine Actions IRC, and we talk non-stop about how horrible Mackensen is, how he lies all the time, how he spends all his time complaining, how he's corrupt, how he's a hypocrit, etc., and then, when new people come in, that's all they see. If they protest, we all take turns telling that person that she should not be at our channel, because she may get blocked. Now, suppose, Mackensen, that you actually saw a log of that. How would you feel if I got sanctimonious about it? How would you feel if I threatened to block you (or did it) for telling anyone about the log? As for me, let them conspire. They've been doing it, and they'll do it still. I'm a big boy and am not threatened by pufferfish. The issue is much more concrete, much more precise. We are all free to be unpleasant, disagreeable, cantankerous, and ill humored, but we are '''not free to conspire to block''' other users. Or, in simpler words: we have to obey policy, not our inner rage. ] 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
**Well, call me a worm if you like. That's not very collegial but I suppose if it floats your boat I won't argue. I wouldn't block you either, but I might start bringing up next time you ran for arbcom. I don't like civility blocks, and I'm on the record stating this numerous times, so let's move on. For all I know there are IRC channels where my name is mud; certainly there are talk pages on this encyclopedia that fit said description. I can't say that those bother me either. People of sound judgment can tell the difference between intelligent criticism and prattle, and I know whose opinion I value. Now, as it happens, I've been in a position where private evidence of someone bad-mouthing me was presented to me. I didn't do anything about it because frankly I didn't give a good damn. You're quite right that we have to obey policy. Last I looked ] was a policy, although not one with much weight any more. You talk about character assassination: why don't you look down below, where Giano is making slanderous remarks. You wanted to be an arbitator: is this your idea of handling a dispute? ] ] 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


=== Comments by uninvolved editors ===
::I don't believe in ignorance is bliss, that has always seemed like a myth to me. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 03:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
'''Support unbanning'''. A single accidental mistake on a different wiki wouldn't violate topic ban on the ENWP slightly. Making BLPs is a risky task, I just made some BLPs which are a translation from RUWP, but one of them is nominated for deletion. Just be careful of the text and use sources carefully. ] (]) 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


'''Comment''' {{yo|Stuartyeates}} You've glossed over having deliberately violated ] as part of a disagreement with others. (Per {{ping|Jayron32|Cullen328}}'s opposes in last appeal.)] (]) 13:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The arbcom has discussed this at great length. Clearly there is a problem. However, with an issue this complex, involving this many actors, there is no solution that will please everyone. On one extreme is people who advocate shutting the channel down, and on the other is people who advocate doing nothing. I think the solution Fred mentioned - working with the structures currently in place to enforce civility in the channel - is a fair compromise. ] 03:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:What structures? Is there any clear methodology for who and who isn't a chanop there? Who are the "leaders" Fred Bauder mentioned? It's a wild-west free-for-all where the most entrenched clique wins in there. &mdash;] (]) 03:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Beg pardon, but how can you confess ignorance at the leadership structure and then characterize it? ] ] 03:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


* I would want to hear from the other involved editors before endorsing a complete lifting of the restriction, but I will suggest limiting the restriction to "race/ethnicity topics involving living people"; that should ensure that Wikidata-related edits do not inadvertently violate a ban. ] (]) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Admin IRC? Is that the place where admins rubs their hands saying ''mwhahaha''? -- ] 03:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support lifting the ban''' or limiting it to the restriction suggested above, per my comments at the ]. The ban seemed overbroad to me in the first place: yes, the conduct was egregious, but the remedy was not tailored. As I wrote two years ago, {{tq|I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that.}} ] (]) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC) <small>(Non-admin comment. I was visiting this page to check on another discussion and happened to see this thread.)</small>
::You joke, but I'm left with the impression that some people think just that. That's what happens when you cherry-pick from a log file. Sure, you'll find something objectionable, but extrapolating from that and coming up with the idea that the whole channel is rotten to the core is just bad propaganda. One should never build law on outlier cases or personalities, but we seem to be headed that way. ] ] 04:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*'''Deeply concerned''' about the sheer number of alt accounts. It took some digging but I found at an afd related to Donald Trump, which makes this a BLP issue. Another alt for a blp. Perhaps not a huge deal in and of itself but technically a violation nonetheless. And by another sock, concerning a list of people, some of whom are alive. by another sock earlier this year. With so many other accounts, who knows what other violations may exist? I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction. Actually I don't support this unless and until Stuart restricts himself to one account for at least six months. It's not feasible to monitor fifty+ alts for violations. ] ] 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::Let me point out, specifically, that I acknowledge the existence of specific abuses in the above comment. ] ] 04:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:* '''I concede that these are breaches of my topic ban''', I'll take that on the chin. I'm sorry I made those edits, I shouldn't have. In my defense (a) They're 100% accidental (b) None of these appears to be related to the issues that led to the topic ban or contentious in any way (c) There are four of them, over the same time I count seven barnstar or barnstar-like awards on my talk archives, so they don't reflect the body of my work over that time. ] (]) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I've never set foot ... err ... keyboard ... in the admin IRC channel. Is it any different from the regular one? On there, people ask for help. They bounce ideas off of each other. They talk about non-wiki things. They point out funny/silly/ludicrous things they've found while editing. Sometimes there's profanity or other rudeness. It's pretty much like life in general. Is the admin channel any different? --] 04:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:*:Those are four that I found, my point stands that it is almost impossible to know how many more there may be considering the absurd number of alts you have. Barnstars don't change any of that. ] ] 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Not really, except that the people in there discuss administrative actions too. The controversial nature of any admin action is squared if "IRC" is breathed, since it implies a conspiracy. ] ] 04:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:*::I also find it hard to believe that you accidentally commented on Donald Trump. He's famously totally alive. ] ] 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::On the whole, the incidents which have prompted this constitute well under 1% of all traffic. Unfortunately, they also represent between 50%-100% of some users total experience with either this channel, or IRC in general. This is a problem, but I think it's a problem in search of a targeted solution. ] ] 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*I was prepared to advocate on your behalf... but I'm also concerned based on the number of accounts and what's gone on with them. I'm also looking through your talk page archives (] and ]) and noticing that the barnstars and related awards I'm seeing were actually mostly given by me. Archive 25 has 6 awards given by me as as the result of your participation in backlog drives, one for your participation / contributions for the year (end of year NPP award, given by Dr vulpes), and an AfC backlog drive award (from Robertsky). #26 has an NPP backlog drive award as well (also given by me). I do appreciate your contributions to NPP, but there is a bit of a difference in people going out of their way to give barnstars for great work and receiving them as the result of participation in backlog drives.
:Anyways though, back to the key issue for me, your use of multiple accounts. JSS said "{{tq|I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction.}}", is this something you're willing to commit to @]? I personally don't understand your usage of, and the large amount of alts that you have. ] (]) 13:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' These alt accounts are a nonstarter for me (some blocked) as are the acknowledged breaches of the topic ban. If they were inadvertent or debatable, I could possibly see fit to give them some slack, but what I'm seeing here doesn't give me a good feeling that lessons have been learned. Show us you can abide for at least 6 months and commit to a single account and I would reconsider. ] (]) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Why I use alts ===
:::(edit conflict, replying to Mackensen at 04:00) Thankfully, my knowledge about IRC is limited to ''/connect'', ''/join'', ''/alias'' and ''/quit'', so I am pretty neutral here. Hmm... I once tried to download some movie through a channel, but it said something about being at position 5,000 in a queue, and after half an hour I was 7,000, so I turned the computer off and bought the DVD.
About 15 years ago during a round of the eternal "should all newcomers be welcomed (by a bot)?" discussion, some HCI person wrote a blog post on a long-defunct uni blog site. They said experienced editors are underestimating (a) how many new users are being welcomed (we only see the problems) and (b) the retention bonus of real human interaction. They challenged us to create a new user account and try editing using it for a while. Some of us did. Some of us found that editing with a clean account removed distractions (no watchlists to watch, no alerts to check, no !votes to vote in because we weren't allowed, no tools to use, no noticeboards like this to update, etc) and that we enjoyed focusing on the barebones editing, usually wikignoming. Discussion about the welcoming issue were less clear cut, but led to a bit of a game, where you see how many edits you can go without getting a user talk page. The game got harder when some wikis introduced auto-welcoming and clicking on an interwiki link lost you the game.
:::I know IRC is necessary to discuss in real time, but undoubtedly, it creates a separation between administrators, just like ]. There are those that can/want to connect through IRC, and those that can't/won't. It is inevitable. Even I feel that difference when someone reports a user at AIV stating "sockpuppet of blocked XXX", and when reviewing XXX's block, I find a "blocked per IRC talk" or similar. However, I must assume good faith, especially without logs. Others just can't (because of personal experience or anything), and raise in arms. It is a real pity that we do not have a ] where to check the public conversations in the channels, available only for admins, that would make things much clearer for everyone. -- ] 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::There's the rub: you don't why an administrator is acting ''period'', regardless of what discussion took place. Even when an administrator cites a specific policy, it still came down to the functioning of various processes in his or her head. There's a thousand IRC channels out there, and most of them prohibit logging. It only comes up with #wikipedia-en-admins because a) some things said there really aren't for public consumption because there are privacy issues, and b) the relative size makes it possible to enforce the rule. ] ] 04:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Of course! However, if an off-wiki action (as in, a IRC chat) brings a on-wiki reaction (in example, blocking a user), I think it would be just to include at least some information about that, just like you would point to the AFD when deleting an article, or the external link when deleting a copyvio. Ok, so full logging is not a solution, but at least consider some way of IRC board where to post the juicy parts (as in, the statements that were used to build consensus about something). We can quote an AFD, a URL or a report, we can even quote a mail to the mailing list, but we can't quote an IRC conversation? As I said, I assume good faith even though a vandal has broken two test4 warnings. However, others are less patient, and you need to comprehend them. I would even say that everyone's priority is to open the process as much as possible. -- ] 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, as I've said before, I see no reason to invoke IRC ''at all''; every administrator is responsible for what they do. Heck, every editor is responsible for every edit they make. Whether it was discussed on IRC or not is frankly beside the point. Anyone should be able to give a rational accounting of their actions. The problem is that the mention of IRC often leads to an assumption of bad faith--not always, but it happens. ] ] 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It is not that different from, in example, asking to review a block here, is it? I mean, some users may bring a review here (like ]), others may feel more comfortable with reviewing there. You are right, if you do something, you take responsibility. But if they can't and use some IRC chat as justification, that chat should be made public.
:::::::No need to reply, though, we will keep going in circles like the ] avatar :-) -- ] 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Most of my 'game' edits were tidying up backlogs so minor / obscure they're not even tracked as backlogs. So https://quarry.wmcloud.org/';%20drop%20database%20prod; is a series of queries finding old articles without a talk page (and thus not assigned to wikiproject) so I can add them to wikiprojects. The username is taken from the cartoon at https://xkcd.com/327/ . For the last decade, me 'game' editing was en.wiki editing I've actually really enjoyed.
::Much of this seems a bit moot. Even if the admin channel was shut down, it is technically impossible to prevent private communication between any group that decides to communicate privately. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The admin channel also serves as a place a lot of newer admins with questions go to get their questions answered. They hang out there, and see how abusive behavior is tolerated and encouraged. In short order they may come to believe such behavior is the correct and expected behavior for administrators. &mdash;] (]) 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Good point grapes, I went there when I was new at the mop for advice and it was very helpful. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yep. It's a good use for IRC. We don't need an #admins channel for it; were there very many highly-sensitive issues you were asking about, that couldn't have been as easily asked and answered in #wikipedia-en? &mdash;] (]) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, you go where the people are. If you have a specific question about administration, you go where the administrators are. I find #wikipedia a bewildering place; I never got the impression that #wikipedia-en was highly patronized. ] ] 04:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Some of my edits are work related. See ] for information on what kind of thing that is. There may or may not be a new class of en.wiki editors: librarians who want to fix facts which have flowed from en.wiki to wikidata to the librarians' library catalogs; whether we'll notice them in the deluge of other random users remains to be seen.
:Nothing is wrong with private communication, some questions need to be asked in front of experienced users, instead of everyone. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, but no reason to not ask a few well regarded administrators privately via email for the same advice or direction. Rarely, is something so immediate that it can't be resolved via email.--] 06:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
=== In camera (aka arbitrary section break) ===
It's been asked a few times, but I'll ask again: What discussion with whom? Would it not make more sense to have the whole thing conducted "in public" as it were? The easiest questions to answer are:
* Who are the "leadership of the IRC channels," and
* Who has been "appoint additional channel ops?"
<font color="black">]</font> 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*The channels are under the control of James Forrester. The leadership is best described as James and Essjay, with help from others. The chanops on ''this channel in question'' include the following: FloNight, DavidGerard, Sannse, Fennec, Danny, Mackensen, Morven, Mark Ryan, Jimbo, Essjay, Angela, JamesF, Kelly Martin, Uninvited Company, Mindspillage and Dmcdevit. ] ] 04:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


One of my alts was created to test for a bug which is now fixed in the upcoming IP Account thingie.
::Good questions. Please, don't assume everyone knows what you are talking about, I only have a vague sense of what is going on here. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Since I'm a bit thick I like it when things are spleed write out: ''this channel in question'' is the admin channel? JF is "in charge" of #wikipedia and #whateveritis-admins, and that list are the chanops for #admins? And "include the following" is hazy to me. Sorry to be pedantic, but can we have a complete list of
::* Existing/previous chanops for vanilla wikipedia channel,
::* Existing/previous chanops for admin channel, and
::* Whomever are the "additional" chanops and what channels they are assigned on?
::The more I read that response the less feeling of security I get... "with help from others" leaves a lot to be desired as well. Was this discussion conducted via mailing list, IRC, something else, and is it written on water or is there something that Morlocks like me can refer to?<br/><font color="black">]</font> 04:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*First of all, #wikipedia-en-admins is the only channel under consideration here. Latent abuses in other channels remain unexplored pending someone of importance getting wronged in one of them (no, I'm not being sarcastic, I'm quite serious about that). New chanops for #wikipedia-en-admins are: FloNight, David Gerard, Mackensen, Morven, Uninvited Company and Dmcdevit (thereabouts, anyway). JamesF, as I understand it, is controller of at least all English-language channels because of chaos at freenode following ]'s death. There're numerous chanops on #wikipedia, too many to list here. The information is publicly accessible if anyone wants it. This was discussion on the mailing list of the Arbitration Committee, which happens to include the people responsible for the IRC channels. A happy coincidence proving that no good deed goes unpunished. ] ] 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::* Thank you. I appreciate you having patience while I catch up. No, ''I'm ''not being sarcastic. ^_^ <br/><font color="black">]</font> 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*Mackensen, a minor point about your list of 16 #en-admins chanops above. You say that the list "includes" these people; does that mean it's incomplete? I ask because a couple of weeks ago I was kickbanned from the channel by somebody who's not on the list. I won't inflame matters here by naming him, but you certainly know who I mean. Was he an op? Or temporarily opped in order to kick me? Is he an op today? I'm over it, but the action was random and remains unexplained, so I think the answers are of some general interest. ] | ] 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
:::::*I omitted all level 10s in the interest of brevity. It was also late and I knew I'd miss somebody. ] ] 11:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Bishonen, that was awhile ago now. I think it's best to just get over it and stop constantly bringing it up. IRC channel actions really don't mean a lot. --] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::In the interest of full disclosure, I have placed a copy of the access list, obtained via ChanServ, in my userspace (]) so as not to clutter up AN. I have removed all those under accesslevel 10, which to my recollection is the level of CMDOP in the channel. If anyone objects to this list (although it is freely available in IRC), then I will remove it. The names there are registered nicknames, and may or may not correspond with Misplaced Pages usernames. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Several times I've created a new account to be sure that something works the way I remember it, in order to help someone else or to take a screenshot (for socials or a blog). WMF improvements have been focused on the onboarding process and branding so there have been a lot of changes over the last 20 years. If you haven't created an alt on en.wiki in the last decade, I doubt it will be as you remember it. Trying to 'reset' an old account has some interesting effects too, but that's another story.
Well, I am glad to see other syops on the channel will have the ability to boot those that are being incivil, but what level of incivility is needed before this happens? The problem as I see it has less to do with incivility than with the channels being used to speak a bit too openly about other editors...that should be reserved for private email only. I recognize that IRC would have usefulness if the sole purpose was to expedite a block on a troll, but all decisions to make blocks on established editors should be determined by consensus on wiki, not off it....so what pupose does it serve? Really now, are we a chat forum or are we a collection of encyclopedia writers?--] 06:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Some of my alts have a humourous intent, ] is my most longstanding one, and I was setting up several alts for a christmas joke when the issue at ] blew up. I've had positive feedback on my joke alts, most was off-wiki, but see for example ].
:The "Chatting vs. Encyclopedia-writing" argument is moot on IRC. IRC ''is'' for discussion of all types, and WMF has nothing to do with Freenode. Those who use IRC are not using Misplaced Pages as a chat forum, they're using ] as a chat forum, whose initials, by the way, stand for "Internet Relay Chat". —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 06:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


As far as I can tell there are no en.wiki policies against how I use alts . As far as I can tell there are no WMF policies against how I use alts. I'm aware that a number of people appear to be deeply opposed to it, but I've always been unclear why, maybe you'd like to try and explain it?
::Yes, but the chatting has led to blockings and has led to reverting blocks made by established admins and has led to formulating abuses that have taken place on wiki on established editors. I am well aware of what IRC stands for...I never use it however and won't.--] 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm sure it has. But it's very easy to pick out singular events that happen every so often, paint all of IRC with the same brush, and in so doing lose sight of what actually happens the majority of the time, which is positive discussion. I know that I personally have been talked down from blocks that I was ready to make when I asked for second opinions, I know that discussions take place that are very positive. I know that sometimes it's okay for someone who has been blocked to be able to get on IRC, get a one-on-one chat with an admin, and explain their side of the story that often doesn't come out on-wiki. The {{tl|unblock}} template is great but sometimes it isn't very conducive to an in-depth review of a block. If an unblock happens based on that discussion, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the unblocking admin to monitor their contributions to ensure that they were not being disingenuous on IRC. Admins make mistakes, and discussions about what we do or about Misplaced Pages process or about the general goings-on can almost never be bad, in my humble opinion. I guess I just don't see the basis for the "OMG EVIL!" attitudes that some people (not you, MONGO) harbor towards IRC. Do people sometimes get into heated discussions? Sure, I got into one last night. Do sometimes administrators make bad judgments? Of course, that's true with or without IRC. I just think that people are looking at a very tiny subset of what goes on and are ignoring what goes on 99% of the time, which is very positive for Misplaced Pages. Anyway, just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary, etc. etc. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Of course...the point is, I see that IRC allows less transparency than we should have. I don't have time to bother with IRC and am simply encouraging all admins and ArbCom members to do all they can to discuss matters on wiki and use IRC for non-harassing chat.--] 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC
:::* My experiance with the plain olde #wikipedia channel is almost universally positive: People collaberating on articles, rational discussions of policy interpretation, etc. When the atmosphere turns poisonious there are enough people around to either tell the person to can it or for the offender to get the boot. (Once it was me, and I deserved it.) #admins I ] in all the time, and the ratio is reversed: There are too many like-minded people there, and the toxicity gets multiplied. I have never, not even on one occasion, seen anything discussed there that would not have gotten a better airing on the main channel. More ops isn't going to solve this, when the list supplied above has listed ''as'' ops several of those often painted as "unrepentantly uncivil." - <font color="black">]</font> 07:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*You really need to try the channels again. #wikipedia is pretty much universally acknowledged as a cesspit. #admins at least has well-reasoned discussion, although it's going downhill a bit what with the recent influx of teen admins who don't seem to realize that it isn't for extended off-topic chatter. --] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*The one thing I have never understood about the admin channel is that it appeared to me, on my infrequent visits, that people weren't using their Misplaced Pages username as their nickname. I guess I'm probably a little dense, but I never understood why. ] <small>]</small> 10:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**How many people have access to the channel who are not admins? How many are former admins who resigned their sysop status, or were forcibly de-sysopped? Because not one of those should have access to the channel, yet they do. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*** I've yet to hear why an admin who voluntarily relinquished adminship is no longer trustworthy. ] ] 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**** Not to kick salt in someone's eyes when they are down, but if the ArbCom has said that you _must_ re-apply for adminship if you want it back there is clearly a grey area with regards to trust. - <font color="black">]</font> 12:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*****Plus at least some of those who voluntarily relinquished adminship jumped before they were pushed, so to speak. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 13:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*Fred Bauder says "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue, we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels to appoint additional channel ops" Fred gives sufficient reasons for closing down the channel but then shows the complete lack of understanding of the problem by failing to say that some of the existing channel ops are not only the worst offenders but at least one is a member of the arbcom. He then goes on to say "we have worked with the leadership of the IRC channels " again the self proclaimed owner of the channel; is not only a member of the arbcom, but yes, you've guessed it - one of the worst offenders. Well done Fred we yet again see that this arbcom is beyond redemption. However, I am glad that after so long of being told by Misplaced Pages's hierarchy that I am imagining these things, they do now seem to be completely unacceptable gross incivility even though the IRC logs show them to be far more serious. Bullying and intimidation are just two words which immediately spring to mind. It should also be remembered that the deplorable events which have been permitted on IRC (certainly in my own experience) are 100% to blame for any incivility which has happened on-wiki. However I must be careful what I say or Fred, Jim and Dm will be RFArbing me again for even thinking such things. ] 12:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**You're still responsible for your actions on-wiki. ] ] 12:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*Well of course that is true, and entirely why IRCadmins has been such a successful harassing operation, goad and plot against editors in secret, and then ban than when they respond it public. Thank you Mackensen for pointing that out so clearly. ] 12:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*You're free to allege that; I've seen the evidence and it looks more like a comedy of errors than some deep rooted plot. How do you justify your incivility towards editors who do not use IRC, or who do use IRC but have never been a party towards comedy or malevolence? Feel free to ignore my earlier statements denouncing incivility towards other in IRC. It's also worth mentioning that as an ex-arbitrator I had a hand in drafting Fred's statement and fully endorsed it. There are no free passes here. ] ] 13:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*Of course it's fair to add more channel ops to combat incivility and personal attacks, but if some of the older channel ops are in fact party to making those attacks, it makes a lot of sense to replace them with friendlier ops. Otherwise, this will just turn into a rehash of "both parties are incivil but we're going to point at one of them and ignore the other's behavior". ] 12:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Sorry, but this would seem to be wikidrama for the sake of it. Is there a point to this wikidrama? Is there a point to the admins channel? If something needs sorting out, AN and ANI exist for a reason. If something needs sorting out privately or you want a private opinion, as MONGO pointed out email should be perfectly adequate. If you are worried about privacy, IRC will hardly assuage your worries, as there would seem to be log leaks left, right, and centre. Does and has the admins channel caused harm, problems, and unnecessary wikidrama? That does not seem to be in dispute. The obvious solution is to nuke the admins channel and every other Misplaced Pages IRC channel with the exceptions of #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, where on occasion I have had some enjoyable conversations that have benefited the encyclopedia. That will certainly put a stop to the wikidrama. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
***Mackensen, some of your arbcom colleagues have had a fee pass for far too long. I concur with Moreschi, any new channel ops will still be under the old disgraceful management? The arbcom's credibility can only be restored if this channel is abolished and its self proclaimed owner de-sysoped for bringing Misplaced Pages into disrepute along with the other admins involved. It must be remembered that leading members of the arbcom have known and approved of this deplorable situation for years. Now it is in the open heads have to roll for Misplaced Pages's reputation to be restored. ] 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
****Then by all means bring an arbitration case, or appeal to Jimbo directly. I certainly don't consider myself JamesF's "agent," I can think for myself and act independently, for better or worse. ] ] 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:First, Mackensen is arguing pretty vociferously, and he's one of the ops for the channel, so I'm not sure he's uninvolved. There are so many bad arguments being made that it's hard to know where to start.
:#First, is there "cherry picking logs?" What is the difference between "cherry picking logs" and "citing evidence?" Of '''course''' you're going to "cherry pick" because you're going to cite the dang evidence. The :15 when no one is there is not going to be cited. Sheesh. That's a Karl Rove like argument. The point is that the abuse is taking place by the same few people, who are chanops, on several occasions and ''arguably'' regularly. The evidence is clear enough for "several occasions," and "regularly" is what's in dispute.
:#That it's the same few people no one seems inclined to discuss. That these people ''are not administrators'' is similarly not being argued. As far as "giving up" status and having it stripped goes, an ArbCom decision said that Kelly Martin "left under a cloud." It ''demoted'' Tony Sidaway. Both are at en.admins.irc, and Greg Maxwell is simply not an administrator at en.wikipedia. He's a meta administrator, but I'm not aware of his being an admin at en.wikipedia at any point. However, people who give up their status ''give up their status,'' and being at that cursed channel is part of the status. If it's not, then why not open the channel to people who ''one day will be'' administrators along with people who once upon a time were administrators? I'm not being vindictive, here: it's simply built into the very definition of the thing. The arguments for its creation were that administrators needed to speak of sensitive materials. Well, why? So they could act. These people who are not administrators can't act. This isn't me being petty: I never supported segregating the beautiful people from the hoi poloi, but it's what the channel was supposed to do.
:#Go where the people are is, in fact, the critical feature. Admins are all over the regular wikipedia irc channel. Go there, because there are enough people there to turn the conversation away from abuse. In fact, the admins.irc channel is nasty precisely because it's ''not'' where The People are, but where only a small group is from time to time. The more populated the channel, the less commonly it goes into abuse. Every log I have seen of abuse has been when there are few people there, mostly like-minded about the central issue that admins are superior to users, that "clueful" people run things. They are philosophically inclined to believe it their right and responsibility to do what's "right" without policy.
:Finally, the people are the problem, but the medium gives them their freedom to abuse. It's like LSD: the sane people will have a slight entertainment, while the mentally unstable will make a very bad trip. ] 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm aware of one active non-admin wikipedian who requested "admission" to the channel and was last I heard roundly ignored. If that makes ay sense, it's a bit late and too hot for thinking. - <font color="black">]</font> 13:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Start an on-wiki procedure to appoint channel operators, so that we don't have clique accusations later. Remove all the non-admins from the channel. Seems like the best solution. &mdash; ] 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::First, Geogre, if you'd read the discussion you'd note that I'm a newly-appointed chanop, which makes me part of the solution, not part of the problem (note: this presupposes that the arbcom is sane). I don't appreciate the comparison to Karl Rove and wonder whether it was necessary. I mean, you score some points but it hardly helps matters. I say "cherry-picking" because there's an indictment on the channel as a whole based on the selected behaviour of individuals. That does not make sense. As you rightly note, certain individuals are the problem. That's cause for individual condemnation, not some broad-based approach. If you're going to indict the "medium," you have to actually ''prove'' that the medium is corrupt; to assert it is simply not enough. ] ] 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::A note of clarification, none of the new channel ops were appointed by the ArbCom. ] ] 17:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'm sorry you don't appreciate the comparison to Rove, but it's a ''Rove argument.'' It's exactly the kind of rhetorical flourish he's famous for. When evidence is presented of abuse, he says, "They cherry picked it." Well, how much would it take? The reason this is an issue, to answer the question the people who haven't followed all of this keep asking, is that ''on-wiki actions'' have been orchestrated on the "invisible" and unaccountable medium of that IRC channel. Each one of these actions has been quickly, if not instantly, reversed, but they just keep coming. Yes, the people are this problem, but there remains no rationale for the channel that shows any advantage to Misplaced Pages. What ''purpose'' does it have? What purpose does it actually ''serve'' that is not better served by media already in place that are already regulated, like AN/I? I asked that question a month ago and, unless I'm really biased, didn't get an answer that stood up. If, therefore, we have people who have to be "worked with" to get permission to change that channel and if these very people are demonstrably problematic, then what the heck are we doing? This is especially the case if they violate the very elitism the channel was set up to create.
:I've tried to be helpful, to offer positive solutions, as well as to condemn what exists now. My essay was an honest effort at working out the inherent strengths and weaknesses. Although some of my points are getting repeated, the hatred and scorn poured out on me by the problem users will prevent their ever admitting that there is a problem.
:Finally, I remind you of what we're talking about here. The subtext is not "play nice." That's lily livered. The subtext is "don't team up to beat on people in a private clubhouse." It's ''far'' more pointed than someone like me being obnoxious to Kelly. It's about blocking. It's about harassing. It's about pretending to be powerful. It's about encouraging new administrators to run roughshod over the project because they are important people. It's about ''learning to show some respect'' for the people who make Misplaced Pages, as those people are not the chanops who spend their lives on IRC. ] 00:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Geogre: Greg Maxwell is an admin on Commons. We need ''as many'' Commons admins in #admins as we can get. Yes, technically, English Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects; in practice, they have a lot of related issues, and we frequently need actions taken on Commons (such as nuking shock images being used for vandalism). --] 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban. They were all done on my main account which is also my real name and the one I use on my socials. ] (]) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
===break 2===


:{{tq|As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban.}} Wrong. A sanction applies to the ''person operating the account'' regardless of whether they are using their main account or an alternate account. You are appealing an editing restriction. It is unreasonable to even ''ask'' the community to determine that all fifty or so accounts have not been violating that restriction, but by appealing you are essentially asking that. It took me quite some time to find the examples above, due to the sheer number of accounts involved. I certainly did not check every single one, but it is reasonable to conclude there are more violations than the ones I have already brought forth. ] ] 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Some insight into the reasoning:
::@], I'm confused about this discussion of "alts" – do you have a list of these somewhere? If they aren't disclosed clearly on wiki, and they're being used to evade a topic ban or to participate in project space, they aren't alts – they're socks. – ] 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*the AC has no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins. Really, it doesn't.
:::More importantly, does Stuartyeates have a list of them somewhere? 😜 ] (]) 23:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*The channel was originally set up as a hotline for admin help being requested, particularly by Jimbo or Danny, and it's damn useful for that.
::::I was working off the list of admitted alts . It's... a lot. And no, they are not all clearly tagged as alts. I'm actually rather surprised this did not earn them a block. Perhaps {{yo|HJ Mitchell}} can offer some insight into that? ] ] 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*It's not just for admins, it's for "trusted Wikipedians" of all sorts. There's Alphax on there as a Commons admin, Greg as a developer, etc. (That someone here may feel they have conclusive proof that a given chanop is a minion of Satan out to destroy Wikimedia is irrelevant to this - it's not yours to decide. I don't care. Really.) *and Greg is on as a Commons admin too, of course.
:::::I think that's hardly adequate per ]. ] (]) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with or whatever). I'd like it if all new admins were invited onto it and someone should write up some suitable how-to process page.
::::::Well,I blocked several of them a while ago, I think following a thread on checkuder-l. The creation of so many accounts, especially with borderline disruptive usernames, naturally drew suspicion. I'm not sure what Stuart was trying to do. I don't know if he intended such a good impression of a troll or LTA but that's what he achieved. ] &#124; ] 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*Many of the IRC logs received from the AC have clearly been edited and even when not don't include a metric shitload of off-channel communication that serves as context.
*There are admins already avoiding the channel because the cries of the torch and pitchfork toting mob above are making them afraid of what people would do with an out-of-context quote. So the AC going over the last six months of logs sent in from viewers looking for people to bring the vengeance of the Lord down upon really just is not likely to happen.


:I'm unaware of any accusations that I've used alts as sockpuppets, except for the decades-old allegations above which were clearly boomerang. If there are any allegations that I've done this, please be clear about them. There is a list of all alts I'm aware of at ]. ] (]) 06:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
So the course of action chosen is to try to improve the tone of the place by leading from the front, hence the current /topic: speak like the person you're discussing is reading. And my frequent strong suggestions to behave better. YOU'RE ADMINS, DAMMIT, YOU WERE CHOSEN FOR YOUR GOOD JUDGEMENT. Mostly the channel shows that, by the way. Anyone characterising it as a festering snakepit that must be abolished is IMO smoking crack and I really can't take them seriously.
::@]: To be clear, the TBAN-violating edits on your alts do constitute sockpuppetry as a matter of policy. Honestly I'd thought policy forbids any undisclosed alternate account use for someone subject to an editing restriction, but it looks like the letter of policy, at least, only says that for ]. I wonder if this should be clarified in policy, as it's not really possible to enforce editing restrictions against someone when you don't know what username they're using. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well said. The TBAN applies to the ''person behind the accounts'' regardless of which account they use. ] (]) 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:: And also every single edit Stuartyeates has made since January 2024 is a sockpuppetry violation since several of the alts were blocked then (there are also blocks from earlier but they were username softblocks so can be ignored here), right? ] ] 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art ==
Note: I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to <s>kibitz</s> advise. I have level 40 on #wikipedia-en-admins because Jdforrester landed it on me. I'm in there a bit lately, when I'm home and my laptop is on and I remember.


Patrolling recent uploads at Commons, I noticed that Socialpsych22 (]), ChloeWisheart (]), and AlicerWang (]) all uploaded AI images and put them in what look to be school essays within a short period of time. It looks like someone might be teaching a class and using Misplaced Pages as part of it, without teaching them how Misplaced Pages article are structured or about ]. Figured I'd brink it to folks' attention here. Cheers, ] (]) 23:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Any questions that show evidence of a shred of good judgement? - ] 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:{{nacc}} Even though none of the three accounts seem to be students in a ] affiliate course, you could still try asking about them at ] on the of<s>t</s><u>f</u> chance that one of the Wiki ED advisors that typically help students remembers a username. Otherwise, I don't think there's much to do if there are no serious copyright (images or text) or other policy violations. Generally, users are given a bit of leeway to work on things in their userspace and it's possible these could be good-faith drafts, i.e. not really eligible for speedy deletion per ]. I guess the "draft" that's not already in a user sandbox could be moved to one just to avoid it mistakenly being tagged for speedy deletion per U5, and perhaps welcome templates added each user's user talk page, but (at least at first glance) I'm not seeing a reason why any of these would need to be deleted. -- ] (]) 01:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)<ins>; Post edited. -- 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</ins>
::{{nacc}} I've moved the userspace one to draftspace and left a message on that editor's talk page asking if it's for school work, so hopefully they'll be able to give more information. ] (]) 03:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Another one just appeared at ]. ] (]) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:The good news is that the few references I checked were real, not LLM hallucinations. Hoping the AI is only used for images, not text. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:Is there any kind of guideline about including AI artwork in articles on here or is it just based on people's feelings in the moment at this point? --] (]) 14:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::David I hope you will take my concerns seriously. ] ] 17:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::There'sn't. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::IMHO we shouldn't have any AI artwork in articles, because leaving all "artists' livelihood" concerns aside, image-generating AI is, as I understand it, often trained using copyrighted images - which makes their creations copyright violations. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::This is not true. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Commons treats AI works as being in the public domain because copyright requires human authorship, however there's a warning about derivative works. I personally agree with The Bushranger that they should all be treated a copyvios, but that's something that's working its way through the courts, IIRC. ] (]) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I would concur with jpxg. You're incorrect on this front. By that logic, anyone who was trained in artistic methods of the another living/recently deceased artist (say ]) couldn't legally make similar paintings. ] (]) 22:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It is ''prima facie'' possible to create derivative (e.g. copyright-encumbered) works in literally any medium. This does not mean that all works are derivatives. For example, this ASCII sequence is a derivative work:
<pre>
_o_
| <--- Spider-Man
/ \
</pre>
This does not mean that the ASCII character set ''itself'' infringes copyright, nor that all ASCII sequences infringe copyright. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Note: I have informed the ] of this discussion. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


== Chicdat ban appeal ==
:Quote: "It's also a good place for admins to sanity-check their personal decisions (or find another admin to deal or not with a matter they feel would be a conflict of interest to deal with." Is there a reason why AN, ANI or even email cannot be used for this? Why the insistence on spurious - spurious, because this is clearly not happening - privacy that is only ever going to feed accusations of a cabal? Given that this channel seems to be causing far more wikidrama than it's worth, is there really a compelling argument as to why this should be kept? ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop green|Unanimous support for '''lifting the topic ban''' from project space and editing redirects to pages in the project space. I will reiterate Lindsay's advice that {{tqq|you are likely to have eyes on you as you fully return, so please take everything you wrote seriously and abide by it}}. But in the meantime, welcome back to project space :) <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Three years ago, in November of 2021, I was topic-banned from the project namespace following . Six months later, I ], but the proposal was unanimously opposed and archived without closure. Through the rest of 2022, my editing gradually decreased in frequency, and I was basically semi-retired for over a year due to real-life stuff. Lately I've become more active again. In the past few months I've !voted on many RMs, almost all of which have been closed accordingly. ] is heading towards consensus to move to a shorter title, a marked departure from some of the proposals I made in 2021, most of which got almost no support and had already been perennially discussed.


Back in 2022 when I appealed my ban, and I had to explain why I was banned, I gave a reason that looked very good, but was really just parroting what other people had told me. What it really all boils down to was: I thought I knew what I didn't know. I thought I was always right. I constantly deluded myself about my experience. When I commented on or opened a discussion, I either gave a half-baked rationale that had no basis in policy, or cited something that had nothing to do with the comment. Often I went above commenting, botching many closes, and tried to do things myself, often moving pages in such a manner. I just didn't understand these things. I made many edits like that. My second-ever edit was one of those. The last one was . That was a year and a half ago.
::Because sometimes one wants a quick answer, because sometimes one is dead wrong and when ten people say HELL NO one gets awareness of it, because in many cases it creates ''less'' drama than ANI. Though I prefer ANI ''as well''. Saying "we decided it on IRC" on admin matters is not a good way to do things, way definitely. Your point is a really important one and one to keep in mind: transparency has to be consciously worked for - ] 14:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


During my long semi-wikibreak, I learned something. Before, when I envisioned having my ban lifted, I envisioned doing everything I had done before the ban, but non-disruptively. That was really stupid of me. If the ban is lifted, I will stick to doing things I understand. This isn't any kind of voluntary restriction like I had beforehand, it's just common sense. If I don't understand something, I won't get involved in it. Even admins do this: there are hundreds of admins who don't have a clue how to perform a histmerge, so they, understandably, don't perform them. Back then, if I had been in that situation, I would have jumped right in, and totally screwed it up. Now, I would stay away, and let the people who know what they're doing do the work. I know not to try to do things, or participate in discussions and areas that I don't understand.
::And I want the channel kept because it's damn useful for what it's damn useful for, and abolishing it would lose that without, my psychic powers predict, diminishing the dramatists' valiant and assiduous defense of the wiki or whatever they're doing one iota - ] 14:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Things have changed. Apart from RMs, one example is at ]. This is the kind of thing that would have led to an edit war back in the bad old days: a disagreement over what an article should say and include. Instead, in AGF and BRD, another editor and I, after a short discussion, collaborated to create a compromise revision between mine and theirs. As an aside, while participating in ] and after making a comment about needless bickering between ideologies, {{u|Chess}}, a user who supported my ban in 2021, pointed me to contribute at a draft MOS guideline (something well within the scope of the ban).
:::I would like to know is ] making the above comments with the sanction and public approval of the arbcom, or are they just using him as a barometer of our opinions. No, I'm afraid a comment alone from Fred will not suffice, something a little more concrete from the arbcom is required. 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC){{subst:unisgned|Giano II}}


So what will I do? For the most part, the same kind of thing I'm doing right now: getting my magnum opus, ], on the road to FL, working on my two new sandboxes of the same sort, participating in RMs that interest me, the occasional burst of recent-changes patrolling, little assorted gnoming fixes... but there are a few more things that I understand that I want to get into doing. Before my ban, I was a pending changes reviewer, one of the few things with which I didn't run into incidents, but voluntarily had it removed. So if unbanned, I'll go over to PERM () and ask to have the right back. If there's a discussion about an area in which I have experience, such as my home ], that happens to be in projectspace (like an AFD for a hurricane), I'll add my 2¢. If there's a discussion at MR that is a ], I'll !vote accordingly (but won't nominate anything, since I don't trust myself to do so yet).
:::::The above are David's private views. They do not represent the consensus view of the ArbCom. ] ] 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not speaking for the AC (I'm not on the AC, as noted), I'm speaking for me, though the matter is in a lot of discussion at present and I've asked the AC to stop by and clarify if any of them feel I've misrepresented things - ] 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


And finally, some assorted appendices. First of all, to the community, thank you for banning me. The IP who opened the discussion is sadly no longer active, but thank you to {{u|Cabayi}}, {{u|Levivich}}, {{u|Thryduulf}}, and {{u|ProcrastinatingReader}}, who supported the ban; and to the closing admin, {{u|Daniel}}. You saw what I did not: I needed a few years away from that area of Misplaced Pages to come back with a more experienced eye. Bans , and this one was a textbook case. All of you prevented a great deal of further disruption. Finally, only tangentially related, but while reverting vandalism the other day, I came across (based on the ] username) ] who was vandalizing. When giving a level 2 warning, I tried to personalize it a bit by adding that {{tq|vandalism isn't very sigma}}. To my surprise, ], apologizing for vandalizing. An absolute gem.
:::::Can you explain your role in regard to the arbcom mailing list? ] 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for considering my request.
::::::I did, above: "I am an ex-arb and still on the AC list to <s>kibitz</s> advise." Ex-arbitrators stay on the AC list as they choose - ] 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 13:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Well, it's really very simple. It is said there are too much nasty remarks on the channel, and that the solution is to make more people channel ops. That makes sense. Then someone points out that the nasty remarks are in part made by the older channel ops. No solution for that has been proposed, but the obvious answer seems to be to de-op those. Note that I have never used the channel, nor do I believe it should be nuked. It's appears simply to be a case of two parties being incivil, and only one party being examined for that. ] 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


:I don't know (or remember) the background to this, but that strikes me as such an earnest and insightful reflection, that I'm sure I'd be happy to '''support''' this. -- ] (]) 13:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::If it was that simple it would have been resolved centuries ago, ergo it's not that simple. If someone wants someone removed from being a chanop on #wikipedia-en-admins they get to convince Jdforrester, because I'm certainly not going to, I can tell you now ... - ] 14:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I'm particularly impressed with the examples of corroborative editing, especially in such a potentially heated (and ]) topic as the ]. And per DoubleGrazing, that's a seriously introspective display of self-knowledge. ]'']''] 14:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:I read through the initial ANI that led to the ban and the unsuccessful ban-appeal discussion. Chicdat's tone and self-reflection in this appeal is a stark contrast to the obfuscation and deflection in those earlier discussions, and displays a noticeable change in editor maturity. I '''support''' lifting the projectspace ban. ]&nbsp;] 14:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' unban per above. I too am impressed by the insightfullness.] (]) 15:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm surprised that conversation ended in a t-ban from projectspace (I don't recall supporting or opposing the ban, and didn't follow the discussion to the end), and I apologize for inciting you to try to get around your ban.
:This is a scenario in which I'd '''support''' an unban, though. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 16:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Chess}} No problem. If this passes, by the way, I'd be happy to help work on that MOS proposal. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;''<sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">]</sup>'' 16:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Support''' unban. I've been in occasional contact with Chicdat over the years, and didn't even know about the topic ban until the user reached out to be about their appeal. Having seen impressive editor growth, I think Chicdat is more than ready to be a productive contributor. I also apprecate the creative take with dealing with that vandal. ♫ ] (<small>]</small>) 20:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It is not just incivility, it is bullying and harassment and attempting to "get rid" of editors. This been condoned by the arbcom, by their assenting silence, - the only solution is to abolish the channel, then no-one has to worry about tackling Jim Forrester (I'm not frightened of him anyway) ] 14:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
* '''Support''', to my surprise; i remember the name Chicdat and the assorted troubles the user had, so much that i Wow-ed aloud in my surprise at first seeing this appeal. But, as both DoubleGrazing and SN 54129's comments point out, this appeal is pretty much the most realistic and self-recognising that we could wish for. My only caution, to Chicdat, is that you are likely to have eyes on you as you fully return, so please take everything you wrote seriously and abide by it. Welcome back ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree that it is more than just incivility, and I don't assent. ] ] 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
::::I suggest it is unlikely you're going to get the lynching you're after. I also suggest you're barely on Jdforrester's radar - ] 14:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Oh I think you'l find our Jim knows exactly who I am - and I think you know that too! ] 14:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
::::::Yes, you're the one I blocked for egregious personal attacks that no other editor making would be tolerated. If you read what I wrote, by the way, you'll note the AC does not have the power to abolish the channel. I don't know if you've ever heard of "diplomacy" or "assuming good faith", but you could give them a go and see if they give you more results you want rather than less - ] 14:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
::And the solution is not just to make more people ops, it's to ask people to be nice and use their admin-given judgement more. These are smart people, and if they have bursts of stupid then the first thing is to try really hard to stop those. This is the diplomatic solution and lacks the emotionally-satisfying and crowd pleasing character of a really good 'Bungee Saddam' Christmas special, but I submit is more likely to make things actually better - ] 14:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The fact that you are so disgusting as to mention "Saddaam" in this context is indicative of the behaviour and level of rubishing anyone who opposes that channel receives. I have been on the receiving end of long enough to know every nasty little trick used. You are going to have to find new depths to sink to now. ] 14:37, 16 January 2007 (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 ].}}
:Any other questions? - ]5 14:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''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)
* '''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)


== Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block. ==
::Well, you've already implied that I'm among those who in your opinions "are smoking crack" and can't be taken seriously, so I suppose it would do me little good to ask a question, O your excellency. &mdash;] (]) 15:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


See ].
:::I was speaking as someone who's actually on the damn thing and knows precisely what the usual content is, against those who characterise it in a manner bearing no resemblance to what I see. Of course, it may just be that my crack supplier is much better - ] 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This user created an undoubtedly spammy page, and deleting it was justifiable. However, they were also issued an indef hard block tagged as {{tl|uw-spamublock}} by ]. There is no username violation, therefore this is a bad block. While I understand asking some questions, trying to educate a user as to why their deleted content was not appropriate, I don't understand why multiple admins, specifically ] and ] did not simply undo the obviously bad block.


The username has no obvious or even implied connection to the subject the user was writing about, therefore there was no blatant violation of the username policy, so the block was invalid. Whether the blocking admin chose the wrong setting by accident or on purpose, it was a manifestly incorrect block. I am not at all comfortable with multiple admins seeing this and letting them remain blocked while they wait for the blocking admin to come by and explain an obviously incorrect action.
::I have a question - who is it that leaks all those logs to Wikitruth? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Just to be clear, I've already undone the block, this is more about admins holding each other accountable and being willing to reverse obviously wrong decisions where a user is blocked without justification. ] ] 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Dunno, but the best course of action I can think of is to treat it as a working-channel-with-chat like a sensible admin - ] 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Hrrmm &mdash; if we knew, we'd definitely have done something about it already ... ] 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*So to sum up,
*#People should not be nasty on the channel,
*#If you see someone nasty, you can ask a channel op to kick that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
*#If you see an op being nasty, you can ask Jdforrester to deop that person, but he is not obliged to comply,
*#The arbcom can request that certain people be opped, deopped, kicked or unkicked from the channel, but the channel ops are not obliged to comply,
*#Being nasty on the channel can be taken into account in arbitration cases, and
*#The cabal puppy eating contest is next wendesday.
*That broadly correct? ] 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


: You have unilaterally undone the block. You could have waited for Jimfbleak to consent to the unblock. A block for advertising or promotion would have been legitimate. ] (]) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Any chanop is no more obliged to take an admin action than any particular en: admin is obliged to take an admin action, i.e. not at all. People should not be nasty on the channel because it's bad for what is after all supposed to be a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit being a working-space-with-chat rather than a cesspit; and I think I'm asking nothing unreasonable by asking admins to act with GOOD ADMIN JUDGEMENT AAARGH. You can indeed and James is actually pretty approachable (if busy) and not insane and stuff. Not only does the AC have no jurisdiction over the channel, the Wikimedia Foundation specificially disclaims jurisdiction over the #wikipedia-xxx channels for reasons of possible legal liability, so bitching about it here does nothing and annoys the pig. Being nasty anywhere that affects the wiki can be taken into account by the AC. The puppy eating contest is Thursday. And NO CANNIBALISM - ] 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::The block reasoning was manifestly invalid, and we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page. ] ] 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::*K, fair enough. ] 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Hi there! As was mentioned below, I am a fairly new administrator (September) and am still learning the ropes. I often try to be kind and see the best in editors when they've been blocked. In the month or so I've been helping out with unblocks, I haven't seen your name around. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you! ] (]) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, I actually just changed my name and my sig, but also I've been more active at AFD, and on the other end of the blocking process at ]. I do think it is a shame that so few admins work unblock requests, when it is only a few people, their opinions become ''de facto'' policy, which isn't good. I do know you are a fairly new admin, as I was one of the first dozen supporters at your RFA, under my then-username ]. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't like what I see here.
::::What concerns me is that you don't seem to have questioned the username violation aspect of this block at all. You could see the deleted page, and could see that it had no connection to the username, and that the name is clearly a common first name with some numbers around it. Being able to see and correct obvious administrative errors is part of the job, in particular when reviewing unblock requests from brand-new users. ] ] 03:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], let's say she had, and she reversed the block instead of asking about the connection to the company. When that editor then recreates their spam page and is indeffed as an advertising-only account, and an irritated admin swings by her talk page to chew her out, are you going to stick up for her? -- ] (]) 04:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for asking. Yes I would. However, you've misrepresented what happened. Again I will assume it is an simple mistake, but {{tq|asking about the connection to the company}} is not what she did, she ignored that aspect entirely. It was 331dot who finally raised a question about it. ] ] 04:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What? {{tq|Hello there! Can you tell me why you were interested in creating the Tripleye article? Do you have any connections with Tripleye?}} How is this not asking about the connection to the company? -- ] (]) 06:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok, My bad, I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about asking how the username relates to the company, which as far as anyone can tell it does not. ] ] 06:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::No indeed. What I'm saying is that, if Significa liberdade ''had'' unblocked without first determining whether the editor had a COI and educating them on what that would mean for their editing on Misplaced Pages, chances are very high that the editor would return to the same behaviour - creating AI-scented promotional articles. If that happened, someone would again CSD them, and I expect they would be blocked ''again'' (this time with more accurate rationale). Maybe after a few more warnings, maybe not. Probably some flak for SL, either as a direct "wtf are you doing, that editor had an obvious COI" talk page message, or a passive-aggressive swipe at her in an edit summary or block rationale or something. This would be a worse outcome in every way than taking the time to check in with the blocking admin and figure out whether the editor has a COI or not before unblocking. -- ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ah I'd no idea you'd changed your name. ] (]) 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:So, it wasn't even a posted article, but just a sandbox? Why couldn't the editor have had it pointed out to them that there needed to be improvements to fix the issues? I also don't agree with the whole "the admin who did a thing had to show up and agree or comment before you can do anything" nonsense. This entire thing seems overbearing, ] and just poor admin conduct altogether. ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
===break 2.5===
::@], that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: ] and ]. -- ] (]) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:::The problem with said policy being the text {{tq|are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators}}, as we can see from the above case and in many other cases (GreenLipstickLesbian has an example list below). There really is not a reason to '''presume''' that admins carefully consider their actions, personally. Particularly when that consideration is not showcased from an action in the first place. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
A somewhat more-to-the-point explanation, perhaps: the operative issue here is David's first point. The ArbCom ''does not have any power over the IRC channels''. We cannot shut them down; we cannot replace the ops; we cannot, as a group, force ''anything'' to happen on IRC (except insofar as some members of the Committee happen to be ops on some channels). The ArbCom simply lacks that ability, and no amount of indignation—justified or otherwise—is going to magically grant it to us.
:I left a note explaining our rules for new articles about companies. That’s usually a good first step when a new editor writes a promotional article.

:I can no longer see deleted contributions but all I see mentioned on 82James82’s talk page is a deleted sandbox. My understanding is that we are more tolerant of subpar material in sandboxes than article space. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
(As for anyone wondering why there's no desysoppings, etc.: well, the ArbCom has decreed, in the past, that off-Misplaced Pages matters were not its concern. This is likely not to be the case in the future—hence Fred's note—but it would be quite crass of us to extend this retroactively to past events. Hindsight is 20/20, of course.)
::That is my understanding as well. It wasn't submitted to AFC or anything, just a sandbox, and if it had been submitted at AFC they would've rejected it, not blocked the user. This was the users's first edit, and they got an instant no-warning indef hard block, and when they appealed they got an interrogation session instead of a reversal of the unjustified block. ] ] 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:The ideal admin, in my mind, considers the protection of new editors to be one of their highest duties. They should ] to prevent or undo blocks. An admin who leans toward blocking without warning, or leans toward refusing unblocks when the editor expresses good faith, is more dangerous than a thousand vandals. ] (]) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
(And, on a further note, for anyone wondering: no, the ArbCom does not have Secret All-Seeing IRC Logs(tm).) ] 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:Good deletion by JFB, bad block by JFB, and good unblock by <s>JSS</s> Beeb. '''But''' after the unblock, there no attempt at all to discuss this with JFB, SL, or 331 before coming here. Couldn't we try that first? Shouldn't we? ] (]) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

::I think we need to have more public discussions about the community's expectation with regard to the treatment of new users. I know you have concerns that the intent of such discussions is to escalate matters, but my intent is the opposite. The two recent recalls happened because the admin corps did not effectively hold colleagues accountable. If we establish a public consensus here that clarifies that that is something we do want from admins, that should decrease the chances of further ugly recall proceedings. ] ] 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Further on this note: the AC has no power, but currently James, Mackensen and myself (arb and two ex-arbs) - not James very much in practice, he has plenty of other stuff he does - are working to make the place sweeter and happier for all concerned. i.e., we'd like it not to suck kthx and consider such important for the wiki - ] 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::My user talk is hardly not public. ] (]) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::You, Mackensen and Forrester - who do you immagine has any confidence in you? This is a joke! ] 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. ]] 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I wasn't aware that my judgment and capacity to serve were in question. I have always served at the pleasure of the community and if my services are no longer deemed necessary I will happily withdraw into private life, as it were. ] ] 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:(non-admin nosy parker comment) Significa Liberdade is one of our newest admins, so I think it's completely understandable that she would be nervous about going against two long-standing administrators. I think, @], discussing this with her first would have been a good idea.
::::Now you are aware. But compared to the unremittingly combative David Gerard, there's still hope for you. ] 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined. They do demonstrate a pattern of finding reasons not to overturn suboptimal blocks, and that's a pattern you should maybe think about changing. I know you made each of these declines in good faith, and you accepted that they other administrators had made them in good faith. And I didn't go hunting for these- these were already on my radar for different reasons, and I made a note of them. Sorry for the dates being all out of place.
:::::Joyous news, I am not a complete failure yet! Prithee, when did thee supplant our Fair God-King? ] ] 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:* This user was indeffed for "disruptive editing", because on their twentieth edit they added "]" to a plant that grew in south east Europe. (But was their twentieth edit and they'd never been told about redlinked categories before- just welcomed with a 4im vandalism warning for adding ] to an American surname article. No, I'm not kidding). In their unblock request, they said {{tq|I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.}}. 331dot declined the request, saying {{tq|Once you have gained a better understanding of policies, and have an edit you wish to make, please request unblock at that time}}.
:::::So ... is this IP Giano? Or someone else? --] 17:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:* This sock block was overturned by @] (with the rationale {{tq|This block is clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts}}), but 331dot had declined the initial unblock request using the justification {{tq|You used one account to comment on the talk page of the other, this makes it seem like you are multiple peopleI see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}}. (For clarification, the user never hid the fact they used two accounts. I don't see any ], neither did JBW, so I don't know how 331dot did).
::::::You're definitely failing the community by consistently Cyding with the IRC gang, against all reason. But that is neither news nor new. ] 17:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:* This user was no-warning indeffed as NOTHERE due to their edits to the common.js/monobook.css page, and because the blocking admin seemingly did not notice the fact that the account also made several minor grammatical corrections to mainspace articles, had fixed formatting errors, and added cleanup tags. 331dot declined their unblock, saying {{tq| This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia.}} (What vandalism or disruptive editing?)
::Cyde why not ask one of the secret channel to do an ilicit check user - and find out, that does happen there doesn't it? ] 17:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:* This user was no-warning indeffed for making tables in a wikiproject. (No, I'm not kidding). A more experienced editor confirmed that they'd asked the other editor to assist in projectspace. 331dot declined to unblock them, saying {{tq|It's not at all obvious to me that's why you are here.}}. No, I don't get all the Wikiproject people either, but the community consensus says that yes, those editors are ].
:::Oh I've just seen "Cyding" that really is very funy, I wish I had thought of that ] 17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:TL;DR: {{tq|I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}} is not a good attitude towards unblocks. We <em>want</em> editors to come back, and learn from their mistakes. We don't demand perfection. ] (]) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You should withdraw that, if you had any concept of decency. ] ] 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Yikes! <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::What exactly is indecent? I have seen far worse(far far worse) said by your heros on IRC, so is it vecause I'm saying it in public? ] 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::The decline reason for Pbnjb1, with Yamla ''enforcing'' said provision no less, seems shamelessly punitive. Only unblocking when they say they have an edit to make? Just wow.... &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You are publicly insinuating that checkusers are breaching the Foundation's privacy policy, and possibly local law, by making unauthorized disclosure of private information. You are publicly accusing someone of an incredibly dishonourable, if not illegal, act. If you can't back it up then you should withdraw it. ] ] 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::''That'' block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- ] (]) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Who knows what has been buried and concealed concerning that channel - nothing you people get up to there would surprise me. ] 17:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I will also point out their unblock denial at ], where a new editor who makes what appear to be respectful inquiries is accused of ] (frankly, I don't think they're POV pushing so much as just being polite, which we should encourage) and blocked for sockpuppetry with no further explanation of any sockpuppetry at all, and with a CU stating there is no evidence at all. That editor, by the way, still has not been unblocked, despite being willing to discuss concerns civilly with other editors and with administrators and neither has ] (the 4th example listed). ] <sup>(]) </sup> 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I will ask one more time that you retract that statement. I'm quite serious. ] ] 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::: To be fair, there are only two options with that user - (a) they ''are'' a sock/troll/LTA, and (b) they are someone who is familiar with Misplaced Pages, perhaps editing as an IP, who made the spectacularly bad decision to create an account and head straight for ANI to vote for banning Fram (and you would have thought in that situation they would have ''known'' it would look suspicious). In that context, the CU data being negative may not be the positive thing it might look like, as if they are the former they probably ''would'' know how to avoid CU issues. Yes, we should AGF, but I can see why people didn't in that case. The other cases may be more problematic, though. ] 09:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::*Read what I wrote - "that does happen there doesn't it?" why not stop shouting and answer the question ] 17:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: How can you see why people didn't? There is no "obvious evidence to the contrary" unless I'm missing something, the evidence presented is entirely circumstantial and non-obvious. ] (]) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Having to deny such accusations is degrading. ]. It does not. It would be a grave breach of the trust if it did. That you blithely assume so speaks volumes of the utter contempt you have for all concerned here. I wonder why you stay, when you're surrounded by such fools. ] ] 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::: {{u|Horse Eye&#39;s Back}} You wouldn't be even ''slightly'' suspicious of a brand new editor that dived into an ANI block discussion with one of their first few edits? I would. ] 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I stay Mackensen, because in spite of the frequent clumsy and very obvious attempts by your colleagues to get rid of me, I know I am of use to the encyclopedia - a progect to which i am totally committed. You are quite correct on one point though "''Having to deny such accusations is degrading''" - I'd change my friends if I were you. Incidentally, why would saying "No! Check user has never been abused" be "a'' grave breach of the trust''"?. Please Mackensen don't start clever games with me that you cannot finnish, because I see everything through to the end no matter how bitter (for some) that end may be. ] 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::: The guideline isn't slightly suspicious its obvious evidence. As a non-admin I would also have to temper any suspicion I had with being found liable for biting a newcomer, hence even when I'm almost entirely certain I still have to be open and respectful (and to just walk away when I can't actually prove anything). I do think that we tend to be pretty harsh with newcomers... If they're not good editors we ding them for being incompetent net negatives and if they're good we start calling them puppets. With all honesty I can say that I don't envy you admins though, the inherent conflict between being swift and severe with socks and AGF, BITE, etc is one of the great questions we face as a community. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::: No, which is why I didn't block them (I saw the edit when it was made). Looking at their previous few edits - using @ in their first edit, spelling lead as "lede", diving straight into AMPOL, that ''is'' a judgment call someone had to make. ] 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Without wishing to cast aspersions at any users with checkuser access, it is certainly possible for checkuser privileges to be abused. I understand that there has been at least one complaint regarding checkuser being used outside of policy. Perhaps I have misunderstood what I have read (I can't guarantee that I could find a link if asked) but I understand the relevant person admitted that they undertook the checkuser complained of, "could not remember" why they did it, and that person subsequently lost their checkuser access. As I understand it, there are checkuser logs, but they are only available to other uses with checkuser privileges. -- ] ] 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::@] hold up, surely spelling lead as "lede" is evidence that they ''aren't'' a long-time wikipedian? We spell it "lead". It's American journalists who spell it "lede". -- ] (]) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*If you count banned trolls and sockpuppets we get complaints all the time. Some of these were deemed important enough for investigation, but the checkuser was cleared in each instance. I am not aware of a direct link between any investigation and any loss of privileges. I've seen that story floating around too, but I've never seen it substantiated, and I first saw it months ago. ] ] 18:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I see most editors refer to "lede" not "lead", which while I can't stand the terminology personally is well documented as a concept per ]. It is therefore not indication of an editors' experience, ever. ] (]) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::The linked page says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and seems to overall document that we use lead not lede. ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Actually, that IP and I are acquainted. It's a webserver in Germany with open ports. I had to deal with a nasty privacy violation coming from it just a few days ago. Could be anybody using it. ] ] 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::People using "lede" on Misplaced Pages is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I see plenty of long-standing editors use it, so I also don't take it as indicative of anything nefarious. &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::@] agreed, I hate it. ] ] 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Anon IP troll blocked for 48 hours (not his first offense, either). And Giano, you shouldn't be cyding with trolls. --] 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I think there's probably a conversation about how unblocks are handled that is worth having, but I'm sure having trouble getting fired up about this unblock in particular. An editor makes a blatantly promotional LLM-generated page, which is deleted; once they're blocked, two admins politely ask about the editor's possible connection to the company. It looks to me like it was headed for an unblock. No one's been rude or made threats, including the editors who dropped templated notices earlier. This looks better to me than ''most'' interactions I see between newcomers writing promo and experienced editors. -- ] (]) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:Nevermind, block duration changed to indefinite as open proxy per Mackensen's findings. --] 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
{{cot|Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin}}
::::That's right Cyde, knock em senseless if they say something you don't like. ] 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
<pre>
:::::Indeed, how shocking that Cyde should ]! We can't have that. ] ] 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
== Tripleye ==
::::::How unshocking it is that when Cyde breaches the civility and personal attacks policies, Mackensen, David Gerard, and the rest of the IRC gang are nowhere to be found. Looks pretty one-cyded to me. ] 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules.
:::::::Hello open proxy! France, this time. ] ] 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Hello! It may surprise you, but I admire your work. I just hope you can find it in you to internalize these criticisms without becoming reactively defensive. ] 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The company equips engineering teams with the tools needed to enable fully autonomous vehicles or specific autonomous functionalities. Its camera-based approach, rather than relying on LiDAR, delivers unmatched visual detail, scalability, affordability, and versatility.

===break 3===
By leveraging advanced computer vision and AI technologies, Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems tailored to their unique operational demands. The company’s patented technology, developed by an experienced team with a history of groundbreaking research and innovation, outperforms other solutions on the market.
"Behavior on the IRC channel may be taken into consideration with respect to arbitration cases if it results in disruption on Misplaced Pages" Fred, does this mean that the door is now open to launch RFA's relating to the orchestrated blocking incidents and use the logs as evidence? --] | ] 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City.
Deep breaths everyone. To sum up;
*'''Fred's statement'''
== History ==
*#ArbCom recognizes that a problem exists and has been discussing ways of dealing with it
Tripleye’s origins trace back to early work by Jens Schick and David Wegner as far back as 2013. Jens Schick, a pioneer in autonomous vehicle technology, built the first autonomous car at Daimler in 1994 as part of a groundbreaking project called ‘Prometheus.’ This was the first-ever autonomous vehicle, predating the 2004 DARPA challenge by a decade and marking Europe’s leading role in AV innovation.
*#New channel procedures and operators are being pushed in an effort to increase civility
*#Comments made on IRC may have 'on Wiki' consequences if they cause 'on Wiki' problems
After Daimler, Jens joined Bosch to establish its vision group from scratch and later launched Myestro Interactive, a research company focused on autonomous vehicle sensing technologies. In 2019, Jens met Francois Dubuisson, a seasoned entrepreneur with extensive experience in building startups. Recognising the transformative potential of Jens’ innovations, Francois joined forces with him to start a new venture, and Tripleye was born.
*'''Outstanding concerns'''
*#Channel continues to exist and thereby damages 'faith in Misplaced Pages'
== Technology ==
*#No punishments for past abuses - banning from the channel and de-sysoping were suggested
Tripleye’s technology is built on a unique camera-based approach that offers unmatched visual detail, scalability, and cost efficiency compared to traditional LiDAR systems. By combining advanced computer vision and AI-driven analytics, Tripleye enables the development of fully autonomous systems and customised functionalities tailored to diverse industry needs.
*#Non en-wikipedia admins on the channel
*#Failure to enforce civility on Misplaced Pages itself / double standards
With a robust foundation of patented innovations and decades of expertise, the company delivers hardware and software modules designed to outperform market competitors. This technology is ideal for industries requiring precise, adaptable, and scalable solutions.
*#Lack of details about new channel operators/procedures that Fred mentioned

== Impact ==
Disclaimer: After long avoiding IRC (ick, ptooey!) I requested access to the admin channel when this blew up about two weeks ago, and (after not hearing back) asked again and got access yesterday. This likely makes me either 'an evil insurrectionist mole', 'irredeemably tainted by IRC toxins', or both.
Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including:

* Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions.
As to my opinions; I'd say that the changes Fred described all sound like good things. On the concerns/complaints: I have no doubts that if the channel were removed another (or several) would be set up - without any sort of civility requirements or access to people who might object to 'cabalism'... the same would be true for removal of the non admins. It has been de facto policy until now that 'what happens in IRC stays in IRC' - retroactively applying IRC bans and Misplaced Pages de-sysopings would thus seem improper to me (not to mention rather vindictive). Incivility on Misplaced Pages itself certainly has been a major factor here, but we have existing procedures for that which ''generally'' work - despite glitches and disputes over application. Finally, I ''would'' like to hear more about who is being asked to help operate the channel and what sort of guidelines / directions for civility are being contemplated.
* Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups.

My impression based on ''one whole day'' would be that the channel was 60% silly, 25% productive admin work, and 15% complaining about things... the last including occasional incivility which I'd consider on par with what is normally seen amongst admins '''on''' Misplaced Pages. One person was called a 'clown', there was a '''joking''' suggestion to ban everyone who supported a particular featured article, an old major dispute was discussed and one of the primary participants complained about, et cetera. Not perfect and surely not the worst which has taken place, but nothing which couldn't be managed. There was markedly less nastiness than ''this'' discussion for instance. --] 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.
*CBD has the thread here. It's part of the last 15% that we'd generally like to deal with, but sometimes it can't be avoided&ndash;especially when this very topic came up and partisans from both sides were in channel. On the other hand, as you rightly note, nothing was said there that wasn't said here, and it's also my impression that the conversation on IRC was more polite. This may be because on IRC you can be kicked for being a jerk. ] ] 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*Thank you CBD, for actually investigating on your own and not just believing the mindless hype. The way some of the way people on here talk about it, you'd think #admins goes through a dozen kittens a day, and that's just the ones used for ''sacrificial'' purposes (feasts not included). --] 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*So how do you propose we deal with people on Misplaced Pages who are jerks? I'm not thinking of anyone in particular but this place frequently turns downright nasty. ] 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Well, blocking used to work, but recently this whole place has become downright partisan that the blocks are overturned even when the person really deserves it. As a result, the person feels vindicated, and continues on with the bad behavior. --] 15:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
**Obviously the answer is to delete WP:AN and subpages and salt them. Also, if we make a rule against incivility, that should stop it in its tracks - look how effective ] is - ] 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
***Oh yes, we definitely a board where people can come complain to mommy that "that nasty person hit me after I kicked him". ] 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
*This always confused me. Misplaced Pages has no jurisdiction over the IRC channels, fine. If they were closed down people would only find other ways to communicate, yes, that's all well and good. But Misplaced Pages currently ''explicitly sanctions'' use of these specific IRC rooms, by pointing people to them on ] and ]. If Misplaced Pages wishes to bear no responsibility for these rooms, and insists that what happens in there does not relate to what happens on Misplaced Pages, then they should not be plugged on-Wiki, right? ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree. ] ] 18:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we tone down the discourse and look at this in cost-benefit terms? Sure the channel has uses, but noncontroversial alternatives seem to exist for all of those uses. Misplaced Pages is almost entirely a volunteer operation. Part of the reason why millions of people have joined up is because it's an open meritocracy. Admin-only IRC introduces a degree of opaqueness. Although the overwhelming majority of that may be responsible dialog, a small number of serious problems can discredit the undertaking. I doubt effective fail-safes can be implemented. If ArbCom doesn't have authority then I'd like to see that formalized by disaffiliating the channel from Misplaced Pages. It's a recipe for trouble to have a secret-but-leaky chat that 1000+ people can visit that lacks firm admission criteria and that putatively has a formal connection to Misplaced Pages outside the reach of ArbCom. I'm an eventualist on this issue, which means I've always suspected the channel will sink under its own weight but maybe the folks who like it can patch the hull. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']''</sup></font> 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Sadly for you Cyde the logs show it is not "mindless hype" and that is why we are all here. According to you Mackensen above - there is no problem of huge concern? No wonder they chose him to be chan op! It's going to be another "let's wipe it under the carpet and save the arbcom" - He is of course on the arbcom mailing list. I think we are having our intelligence insulted here by Cyde, Mackensen and David Gerard, I expect as we speak they are rounding up further little IRC admins to come here with their 10 pennies worth - it is truly amazing - what are they going to come up with next? Watching these peole on the run is truly wonderous ] 15:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for that. Your support is appreciated. ] ] 15:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I in no way support you. You have been a member of that chanel and known full well what has been going on for ages, so suddenly why have you decided to do something about it, you have condoned it for ages with your silence. You just want to save the "club" at all costs, and when this has died down it will be just as it was before. ] 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::For all of one day. It's that dangerous, is it? ] ] 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::(''Note: Giano wasn't talking to CBD, he was talking to Mackensen. I've moved CDB's comment down to make that more clear.'' ] ] 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC))
::::::Giano, much as I am ''really'' enjoying the humor value in the implication that I am a 'little IRC admin in cahoots with David, Mackensen, and Cyde' (ROTFL)... 'not a battleground' comes to mind. Yup, people have done things they shouldn't have. Welcome to the human condition... you need to get over it. 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind', 'forgive and forget', and all that. If everyone insisted that every wrong be punished we'd spend all our time fighti... <looks around> oh wait. You haven't been above reproach either and in expecting such lapses to be forgiven you should also understand the need to do so for others. People agreeing to 'try to do better' is a ''victory'' for everyone... and insisting that 'there will be no peace until vengeance is satisfied' a loss for all. --] 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

===break 4 - ArbCom mailing list===
It seems to me that the main issue here (other than the incivility that brought the issue into the open, and that official policy seems to be to sweep past indiscretions under the carpet) is that use of IRC is encouraged, as a quick and dirty way for interested parties to discuss issues as they arise, but there is no official relationship between Misplaced Pages and IRC (by design, it would seem, on account of legal concerns). There is no clarity about what the #admin channel for, and who should have access to it. Should it be limited to current admins? Should it be available to ex-admins too, or indeed any editors in good standing? And if it is being used to formulate consensus for taking admin actions on-wiki, shouldn't it be logged and transparent?

Reading ]'s comments above, I have a second concern: he says he is on the ArbCom mailing list, as a former arbitrator. I had forgotten that non-Arbitrators have access to the ArbCom mailing list (I seem to remember ] calling herself an "arbitrator emeritus". And someone is bound to ask for a diff now). Who else, other than the current members of ArbCom, have access to the list (is there a list somewhere?)? Should they? -- ] ] 16:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I beleive there is over 20 of them, and when somthing interests them they all but in and have a say, which is why they can't reach concensus on this problem at all, they say they can't abolish the channel, but they could easily abolish the admins who use it, and of course the members of their own comittee who like to make such questionable use of it. ] 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser). I should think the committee is capable of cleaning its own house. ] ] 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I for one appreciate all the cleaning help I can get ;-) ] ] 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::The committee have proven themselves far from capable of cleaning any house let alone their own, in short they appear incompetent. Now, how many are on that list, precise number please? ] 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Ginao, I one called you a ], I now see you are getting back at me ;-) ] ] 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'm not a list-admin so I don't have the exact number, but I suspect you can count as well as I can. Take the current committee, add all former members plus Jimbo, throw on a checkuser or two, subtract Kelly Martin since she unsubscribed when she resigned her adminship and other offices, and you have your potential list. ] ] 16:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::No No NO we don't want throw in one or two, we want how many, and perhaps who, then we could amuse ourselves laughing at how many use the "secret channel". Why not ask David Gerard he runs the list doesn't he? He's bound to know. ] 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The subscriber's list is available to every member of the list. There are 29 members of the ArbCom mailing list. ] ] 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure the ArbCom is capable of looking after itself, but then we peons have an legitimate interest in knowing who is copied in on the internal ruminations of what is essentially Misplaced Pages's highest decision making body, and which is privy to the most sensitive information about all sorts of topics.

There is no mention of an ArbCom mailing list at ] or ], or indeed ]. But, given what you say, it seems rather odd that there are more people on the list who are not members of ArbCom than those there are (12 current members listed at ], compared to 21 former members on the same page - less one - plus more from ] and "one or two" from ]). Given the overlap between the various categories, presumably the list at ] is quite close? -- ] ] 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think the names of those participating in the arbcom mailing list and the arbcom IRC channel should be public. Most input is useful. Although occasionally former arbitrators can weigh in with old issues I would rather not revisit. ] 18:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with Fred. ] ] 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

: The committee's internal mailing list is private, as is the committee's IRC channel. Subscriber lists for neither are published. ] Co., ] 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::But why can't we just know who the recipients are? Surely that can be transparent - I know who the director of ] is so I'm sure the members of the ARBCOM mailing list can demonstrate similar openeness to the wiki community. --] | ] 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

::Oh, I was not aware that there was an ArbCom IRC channel too. Something else that is not mentioned on any of the ArbCom pages. Anyway, I'm not sure why the names on the participants need to be kept "secret". For example, ] mention a similiary-sensitive closed list, .

::Fine, the contents of the ArbCom list e-mails are private, and I am not asking to be able to read them or for them to be logged publicly (although it may be interesting to look back on them in 30 or 60 or 100 years) but ] (who, I understand, participates on the list as a former arbitrator) has essentially told us the answer anyway: "All former ex-arbitrators in good standing are permitted access, as are certain other trusted persons (people with oversight, checkuser)." plus the current members of ArbCom, of course. So why not have a public list of people who are on the mailing list? -- ] ] 18:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm sure they have very good reasons ALoan, why the names of those who govern us are on a peice of paper known only to he who guards the list, and incidentally decides not only what is allowed to be on it, but even more crucially WHEN! These things are not to be discussed openly, but I do happen to know "he who guards the list" did a check-user on me very recently, while performing himself yet another wrong and again reverted block of me. Obviously he felt I was a serious risk to the Encyclopedia, on the other hand perhaps he was just curious - who knows! ] 19:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

----

I've added a new section to WP:AC called ], which lists the current subscribers to the ArbCom mailing list. ] ] 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

===break 5===
why are we discussing IRC? IRC is off-wiki. AC has no jurisdiction there, we have no jurisdiction there, case closed. If there are problems, spell out in giant letters somewhere that IRC channels, even if called "wiki" have serve no official function on wikipedia, whatsoever. I've been an admin two years, and I've never been tempted to look into IRC. It's not part of Misplaced Pages, period. The AC must be out of its mind considering accepting evidence from IRC logs. Are they bored? Have they considered the difficulties, such as identity-theft and verifiability? Leave IRC alone, but crack down on anyone that takes IRC-feuds onto Misplaced Pages. ] <small>]</small> 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::As long as that IRC channel bears Misplaced Pages's name, and is, or is seen to be, an official organ of Misplaced Pages administration, then Misplaced Pages needs to be responsible for that IRC's actions. If on the other hand that channel were to be no longer affiliated with the encyclopedia, by changing its name, and by suitable public statements of disaffiliation, then the encyclopedia could wash its hands of any responsibility. ] ] 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify a few things for the purposes of this discussion:
*There are 272 people with access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel which constitutes about 25% of all English Misplaced Pages administrators. I'm not aware of any Misplaced Pages administrators asking for access for the very first time and not being given it (however I believe there have been instances where channel occupants have had their access revoked due to abuse).
*These days there are usually between 40 and 50 people in the channel at any one time.
*James Forrester is not the "self proclaimed owner of the channel". He is the IRC Group Contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that WMF-sanctioned role he is the person authorised to deal with Freenode on behalf of the Foundation.
*If Wikimedia/the ArbCom requested (e.g. through James Forrester) that the admins channel be shut down, then there would be absolutely nothing (apart maybe from goodwill on the part of Freenode) to stop people from creating an identical channel and picking up where they left off. The IRC channel is not a service of the Wikimedia Foundation, and as such the Foundation only has peripheral authority through the fact that several of those with high-level access on IRC are also deeply involved in one way or another with the Foundation or Misplaced Pages.
*I think I got given operator access in this channel because I asked for it, to fix some faulty channel mode:s or something like that. From there, I have just done the occasional access-giving to admins new to IRC. Rarely have I had to use my operator access to op myself in order to diffuse a situation. I am more hesitant to kick or ban people from the channel, or remove their access, because they are admins. But I've always been a devotee of civility, as some on the WikiEN-l mailing list might know, and I'm happy to enforce a stricter level of civility in the channel into the future.
*The channel is more useful than some people are giving it credit. At least twice in the last week I have found the channel useful to discuss extremely sensitive matters, which would be entirely inappropriate to discuss in larger, more public channels like #wikipedia.
*I would like to know what this new position of the ArbCom means when it comes to IRC logging. At the moment, public logging of #wikipedia-en-admins is strictly prohibited. How are the ArbCom going to take into account statements made on IRC if such logs which they take into account cannot be posted as part of their decisions?
I hope some of that made sense to someone. - ] 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::Re: arbcom... Logging and showing the log publicly isn't allowed, however private logging and mailing the logs to the private arbcom list is acceptable. (eg. many users probably have automatic IRC logging turned on for all channels) --] 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::But they're not exactly good evidence, since they can be so easily redacted. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Let alone altered or falsified outright. On-wiki the diffs do not lie. There is no such guarantee with any logs, especially when logs are furnished by parties with vested interests. The last logs I saw being circulated were three statements by James taken ''entirely'' out of context. If that's all that's being distributed, why in the world would ArbCom get involved and try to mete out punishment when they know so little of the situation? --] 17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::No that is not "all that's being distributed". The many logs I've seen have been apparently complete and unedited, and some have been independently verified. ] ] 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::However, the logs posted publicly were redacted, and that's what most people have seen. The decision to supply complete logs to the committee came ''after'' multiple people on the mailing list pointed out the severe problems that redacted evidence posed. ] ] 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Because folks who think they've been wronged are threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue because it's unfair to them. ] 17:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::It applies to both sides. Everyone just needs to let it go. However, there's one person in particular who can't seem to do that, and as a result, it just goes on, and on ... ] 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::"Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behavior absolutely unacceptable; to ensure that it does not continue" - Cyde are you really suggesting that this is all a terrible fit-up and the ArbCom have been mislead? Hardly credible - I'd like to know why Freenode prevent public logging, perhaps there's some means by which they will make an exception for us - we could then release the logs in something akin to the ] - except 30 days perhaps, this would bring transparency to the channel, but preserve the immediate effectiveness of it for private deliberations. --] | ] 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Much worse things have been said on-wiki than anything the ArbCom has looked at from the #admins channel. ArbCom didn't seriously take any actions against the on-wiki stuff and they aren't seriously taking any actions against the #admins stuff either. This is just an advisement message. And no, the thirty day thing wouldn't work. Some of the stuff dealt with is stuff that needs to stay private over legal lifetimes &mdash; that is, decades. The only possible way for public logging to work would be for someone to go through and redact everything that cannot be said in public. I don't see that as being workable. Alternatively, #admins could be opened up and a new channel for dealing with private issues could be started elsewhere. I don't think that would solve the accusations of cannibalism, however. --] 17:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I don't think Cyde knows what logs the ArbCom members have seen. ] ] 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::So do we ever get to know what logs have been considered in reaching any given ruling? The standard seems to be "discussing off-wiki is okay, but it must be justified on-wiki". --] 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Given the leaky nature of the channel I would have thought anything that sensitive should be confined to emails anyway. What other arguments are there against publicising the logs? --] | ] 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::If much worse things have been said on-wiki then where are the law-suits?--] | ] 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You're conflating two separate and highly different issues. One issue is common incivility against other Wikipedians (which happens on and off wiki). There are no legal ramifications. The other issue is stuff that must be discussed privately to avoid legal complications. This is not ever discovered on-wiki. As for the leaky nature of logs &mdash; yes, that is why, largely, other channels are being used to handle the tricky legal issues. --] 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid this is all getting very nastily near to the truth for Cyde! ] 17:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that Freenode no longer uses the concept of "group contacts" for channels with no official relationship to the thing being discussed. I don't believe that any change to the logging policy is being proposed at this point. While I could be mistaken (and would welcome a link to the salient Freenode policy if I am) I believe that the logging policy is a tradition carried over from #wikipedia rather than a Freenode matter. I would hope that everyone involved in the channel would adhere to the highest standards of Wikilove. Be excellent to one another and to those not present. If there are any current and ongoing problems with misuse of the channel, I would welcome any logs emailed to me privately. ] Co., ] 18:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:I would hope so too, but this has demonstrably not been the case - so, in your opinion public logging is possible? I'd be a lot happier with a published, unredacted log for everyone to see and comment and be judged by. --] | ] 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: I don't believe that additional logging is warranted unless there is still a problem. I am unconvinced that there is a present or ongoing problem at this point, since the users of the channel largely cleaned up their act in the wake of the recent public criticism of the channel. I repeat my offer to investigate any logs emailed to me privately that show a present and ongoing problem. ] Co., ] 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::That's all well and good, but the point is I'm still in a position where I, and every other non-admin - just has to take your word for it. What I've seen over the past months, leads me to believe that there are personalities at wikipedia, in positions of trust, that abuse that trust. with 1000 admins you'd expect a few rotten apples - but when ArbCOM are implicated - you'd expect resignations really. It seems they are unable to police even themselves, let alone the rest of us - I'd prefer to be in a wikipedia, where behaviour like that isn't condoned by the authorities. --] | ] 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Step right up to ]; if you ask I'll probably nominate you myself. Got a problem with the process there? So do I; visit ] and make yourself heard to help get it fixed. Want to join the channel but not an admin? Become one of the trusted non-admins in the channel by making your case to any chanop. I'm not convinced that the arbitration committee is implicated in anything other than inaction brought about chiefly by jurisdictional concerns. Until recently we treated IRC as completely outside our jurisdiction. Obviously, this is changing. ] Co., ] 18:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::ArbCom isn't implicated. There's one person making lunatic claims that are wholly unsupported by any evidence. The channel is being watched by a ''multitude'' of people. --] 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well you wont mind the logs being made public from now on then. I think I'd like to be one of the ''multitude'' --] | ] 18:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sure. Any chance you'll open up your correspondence? I'm certain you've nothing to hide either. How about the other commentators on this thread? Come on, give us your emails. Phone conversations would be good to. Talk to your wife about Misplaced Pages before bed? We'll need that to, thanks! Please transcribe private thoughts on a section of your userpage as you have them as well. This is an open project, after all. Call it ''reducto ad absurdum'' if you must, but where does it end? ] ] 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Even #wikipedia doesn't allow logging. It would hardly make sense to have the private admins channel logged, but not the general users channel. Go try to get logging allowed in #wikipedia first, and then we can talk. --] 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Cyde, you know damn well there's evidence - it's been submitted to the ArbCom - again, do you think it was a fit-up? Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way, and the best we can come up with is "people have been quite naughty on both side - please stop. For those of you looking on we're going to keep the doors shut for legal reasons, but just trust us everything is going to be ok from now on." mmmmm -And for that matter - no, I'd have no problem with any of my wikipedia business being made public, in fact, wait a minute - I don't use back channel communications.--] | ] 18:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::And we're just going to have to trust that last assertion? ] ] 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I think if this damning evidence of conspiracy that you spoke of actually did exist, the ArbCom might take some action. As it is, all they're talking about is minding civility on the channel. Stop repeating this hurtful, false, and unsupported accusation. It's not helping ''anything''. You haven't even seen this so-called "evidence", merely blindly repeating something you've heard from others. It's wrong. Stop repeating it. It's little more than vicious gossipy rumors. --] 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I wouldn't make the same assumption Cyde is making here. It is possible that the ArbCom has choosen not to act yet, for other reasons than lack of evidence. ] ] 19:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You should assume good faith until it is proven that doing so is untenable yes. My point is that I can't do that now with certain individuals. I'm not looking for complete transparency (from your comment above Mac) - I see the necessity of private communication - but this channel has been abused, to correct the public perception of it, no amount of assurances are really going to work and the scramble to protect it just adds fuel to the suspicion that there's something wrong with it. Let's make a clean breast of things, lets have some openeness, frankness, honesty and integrity. --] | ] 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed, no amount of arguing to the contrary will convince people of the innocence of the accused. ] ] 19:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

===break 6===
::::::::"But this channel has been abused" &mdash; Can you please, please, offer up some evidence to support this assertion? And especially the assertion of, "Your mates got caught conspiring in the most reprehensible way." These are very bold statements, but they also happen to be unsupported. It's not a good idea to make damaging and controversial assertions without evidence. Until you have more to go on than "But someone else said it", please desist. --] 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Cyde, I'm not here to trade insults or argue semantics with you. I ''have'' seen the logs and we could argue whether conspiring to remove an editor from wikipedia might be considered grossly uncivil. - The whole problem with substantiated arguments is precisely what I'm arguing - make the logs public, and everyone gets to see the behaviour, remove the rather convenient - "you can't substantiate that accusation" because no-one can publish the log. --] | ] 19:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Please forward these logs to me then, so that ''I'' might review the evidence (and compare it against my own logs to make sure it is accurate). --] 19:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Or at least clarify what it is that you're talking about. If these are the logs regarding Giano's block, well yes, I've seen them and I'm dismayed by them, and steps are being taken. This, I believe, has already been discussed. If you have something new, say so. ] Co., ] 19:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's still not very clear. That could be any of a dozen times. ''Which'' block are we talking about? I at least want to go through my logs and see if I can find any of this evidence of a vast conspiracy. --] 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think the best thing now is for Cyde to become cylent, and allow the arbcom to finish their deliberations. ] 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
::: And I think the same would apply to you as well. ] 19:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

*Oh, fun. Cyde's back to the "I demand evidence! (If you give it to me, I will block you.)" <sigh> Then we get to "if there were evidence, ArbCom would do something" from one head, while another announces dismissively that ArbCom can't do anything and that no one on the channel has to give a rat's fig what ArbCom says about who is or is not an op there. This kind of spirit of cooperation, this level of self-examination, this desire to make sure only the highest standards of behavior are upheld by administrators is, in fact, what keeps this "drama" ongoing. If the actors would only leave the stage, we might at least get a new play. ] 00:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm honoring Cowman's closing of this thread (even though it's been overturned by Fred) and I'm refusing to continue with this mudfight. It's as plain as day to me that this isn't going ''anywhere'' productive. --] 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We really could do better than this. Giano (and Geogre too, for that matter) whenever you feel moved to make a personal attack on someone, please consider ''not'' doing so. And if goes without saying that if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano, they should also knock if off. While people are engaging in these gross and unacceptable personal attacks they are not helping Misplaced Pages. --] 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

::*"''if anybody really is engaged in some kind of conspiracy against Giano''" "if???" You are behind the times Tony! However, you always have been a little out of touch with the mood of things here, anyway having proved my point beyond all reasonable doubt, I have now cancelled all wikipedia donations, and advise others to the same. Donating our time is enough from now onwards, if the money is ro be wasted in this fashion . The whole thing is now ridiculous if you, Cyde, Mackensen and your friends want to inhabit a private world of spite then you may, so long as it is poweless and all opinions which eminate from it are shunned, ignored or laughed off, then what the hell. The place and its occupants are now thoroughly discredited. I don't see there is a lot more to say, and unless I am yet again commented on and attacked, I shallbe saying very little more on the subject. I shall not be funding but ignoring the actions and views of all IRCadmins and their non-nadmin cronies from now on. As far as I'm concerned they are in effect de-sysoped as they have forfeited all respect. I advise all others to do the same, thus leaving wikipedia a better place. ] 10:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:: Please consider carefully your use of language above. This isn't a school playground, it isn't about one faction or another "winning", being discredited, or whatever; as always it's about the continuation of behavior that is obviously damaging the community and the encyclopedia. If you've given money to the Foundation in the past, as a fellow editor I say thank you. All such donations are voluntary but nonetheless welcome. I'm just asking you, next time you feel that you should make a personal attack like this, to reconsider. That's all. It's no more than Misplaced Pages policy expects of all editors. That includes you. --] 10:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Go tell it to IRC Tony, you have more credence there. ] 10:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*Within moments of the advising Tony to tell it to IRC admins he was indeed on the channel denouncing me yet again, denying any wrong doing on the IRC admin channel. Apparently I'm a fantasist. Where I wonder are the amazing new policemen? - well I told you nothing would change, but I did rather think they might behave themselves for longer than half an hour. They just cannot help themselves, so within seconds of me saying publicly all over this site I was through with the subject, they are all up to their old tricks. What would happen if I quote the logs here? Do I have your permission to quote your words, Tony, Doc Glasgow, and Phil Boswell? ] 12:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*If you can manufacture some kind of conspiracy out of what I have been saying in the admins channel today, you are more than welcome to try. So long as you quote '''everything''' I said, providing proper context (timestamps would be nice also), without any kind of elision, summarising or editorialising, fire away. HTH HAND —] | ] 13:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::Do you really think I'm daft enough to give you the timestamps! ]
:::::Whilst trying to answer a question about how this whole thing started I said on IRC "Doc_glasgow> The problem is, that when people believfe Giano has a free pass, they DO conspire, from a sense of injustice, to find a way to convince the community to act and stop his nastiness". I stand by that remark as my impression of what has happened. I was not 'denouncing you' in secret. There is a vicious circle: 1) your incivility isn't dealt with. 2) People feel aggrieved and discuss it. 3) You get paranoid and indulge in more incivility. I said nothing I haven't said on-wiki before. I have posted this analysis on an arbcom talk page in the past. Why anyone felt it helpful to send you the logs I have no idea! But that person out to be booted, not for breaching confidence, but for trying to stir up trouble and feed trolling. You are appearing like a fantasist, you are seemingly paranoid, and you are being quite nasty. And please don't try to have a civility contest with me - you lose.--]<sup>g</sup> 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't need to Doc - you do a fine job yourself. ] 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::You have my permission to quote anything I've said or will say on or . (Those are the only channels I visit, and indeed I plan to keep my involvement with to the strictest minimum in future.) ] | ] 15:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

:: Yes, you're a fantasist. This isn't a secret, nor does stating this as a fact amount to a personal attack. You have repeated false claims of a conspiracy, most of them made up out of whole cloth, some of them supported by dubious readings of purloined logs. Please stop. It is harming Misplaced Pages and the community, --] 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Let nobody say you weren't warned, lets see who dares to block you for personal attacks. lets see where your free pass is. Come on Mackensen where are you?, what you Kylu? Lar? have you an opinion ] 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::As it happens I'm working on the ]. Since I've never blocked anybody for personal attacks and as I've stated openly that I don't support such blocks I cannot begin to fathom what you're trying to prove here. ] ] 13:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I'm proving that the new policing by yourself is none too imptressive - is it? Of course this whole business is just another example of the IRC goading that one has to contend with, they say these things on IRC to infuriate (they succeed) . Sadly their days on their poisonous channel though are now numbered. I shall not insult any of the above (as they would like me to) I'm sure all other editors can see exactly what sort of people they are, without my adjectives. ] 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::No, you're not, actually. Nothing was said in the channel today that in any way contravenes civility. Go ahead, post all the logs you want, because there's ''nothing there''. What goading? What are you even talking about? ] ] 14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::: I am not responding to your bait any longer. We obviously have very different interpretations of civility. I cannot be bothered to argue with you and your cohorts any longer. The channel is doomed, it has lost all creditability along with those of you who inhabit it. Please just stay away from me, do not comment on me and if possible do not discuss me on your sordid channel, that way their will be peace on wikipedia. Thank you ] 14:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::: Nothing would give me or anyone else any greater pleasure. I daresay no one on that channel wants the least bit to do with you and would gladly stay out of your way. In turn, of course, you have to stay out of theirs. I'm not baiting and I'm not goading; I'm asking honestly and with restraint how you think civility was breached this morning. If you're not willing to answer that's fine but don't then turn around and criticize me for not doing anything about it. Yours, ] ] 14:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::You had your chance - now go away and leave me alone - please! ] 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Sorry to be prolonging this thread here, but this is a direct response to what Mackensen says above. Mackensen, I don't understand your thinking when you insist that Giano should quote the log for today, or when you ask that he show how civility was breached (which is in turn hardly to be done without quoting). Aren't you asking rather a lot ? Tony Sidaway, the person who (in my opinion) did make attacks this morning, has been asked for permission to quote his words, but hasn't replied. Consequently Giano would be banned if he did quote them. Wouldn't he? ] | ] 17:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
:::::::::::::I think the question has been rendered moot. I have the impression that Giano would like to leave the matter where it sits, and I want to respect that wish. However, since you asked, allow me to clarify: I didn't ask Giano to post logs, though it's quite obvious he has them. A private communication would have been more than sufficient. I was mainly asking for clarification as he had me (and, still has me) at a disadvantage. Again, I've reviewed the logs from this morning on my own, and I see nothing&ndash;from any party&ndash;that rises to the level of a personal attack or would be construed by an uninvolved party as incivility. However, if you'll note below, I've taken the step of banning all further discussion regarding, mention of, or inference to Giano and these related matters. Under the circumstances, it isn't possible for those things to be mentioned without someone taking offence, and I've had more than enough drama this month. I should think we all have. Yours, ] ] 17:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::: To clarify, in my opinion not one word that I have said about Giano on that channel comes close to being a personal attack, I consider none of the words I have uttered about Giano on that channel or anywhere else to be confidential. Nothing I have said there about the ongoing problematic behavior of Giano and one or two editors, to wit, their baseless personal attacks and their fantasies of a conspiracy, is other than what I have said on the wiki. Giano is a problem editor as long as he continues to launch false and baseless attacks on other editors. We have to recognise this fact in order to achieve a solution. --] 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
----
I'm hoping that draws a line under it all. Please, just stop now, it's not getting anyone anywhere. You think other people actually enjoy this? You think it makes us feel one jot better about contributing? You think it improves the mood or the tone? Think about the impact you have on others. If you have to do this, go and do it at arbitration and agree a settlement '''for once and for all'''. Let us have our encyclopedia back. Please, simply end it now. No more words. Thank you. ] <small>]</small> 12:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

=== Suggestion ===
] is probably a better place for this, although ] would be a better name for it. Can I ask that those involved here mosey over there so that we can try to acutally work out a stable solution? <br/><font color="black">]</font> 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:If ArbCom cannot deal with this, why are we having this conversation? Only tempers are flying. If Jdforrestor controls the wikimedia channels, can we not have a simple appointment process for channel operators who can deal with off-wiki civility issues off-the-wiki? It is as simple as that, otherwise I do not see anything other than hypocrisy. &mdash; ] 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

=== Notice ===
Per Giano's (and, frankly, my own) wishes, I have banned all in-channel discussion of him and related disputes, regardless of content and motive. We're at the point where good faith simply cannot be assumed, and it's time to move on. We have articles to write; an encyclopedia to build. Yours, ] ] 14:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:Mackensen, I think this is a very good idea, and want to thank you for doing this. ] ] 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

===Suggestion (2nd)===
I haven't read all the above, but David Gerard did emphasise that the WMF and Misplaced Pages organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over wikipedia IRC channels, which is fair enough, though I wonder whether they are allowed to use wikipedia in the channel name if this is the case. Maybe the names should be changed to include the qualification 'unofficial'?

My main point is that if they are unofficial and Misplaced Pages has no jurisdiction there, doesn't that place the wikipedia IRC channels in the same class of organisations, like Misplaced Pages Review, Wikitruth, Uncyclopedia and similar critical, humorous and attack organsiations, that are clustered around the behemoth that is Misplaced Pages? ie. Related to but not really part of it? If someone set up a website staffed by Misplaced Pages admins for Misplaced Pages admins to go to to get advice about admin actions on Misplaced Pages, would that be any different from the wikipedia IRC admin channel (apart from not being IRC)? If not, then I suggest leaving the IRC channels to stand or fall on their own merits, and simply make clear, here, on Misplaced Pages, that these IRC channels exist, but they are not official. Make them ex-officio, if indeed they ever were official. Then, if the IRC channels get a reputation for being closed and cliquey, and/or the wrong place to go to (I don't know the truth of this, as I've never been there), they will start to wither and die, and people will learn (or be prompted) to use on-wiki processes instead. ] 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*This seems a sensible reading of the situation. My only quibble is purely grammatical: ] doesn't mean what you think it means. IRC channels don't exist by virtue of any office, unless you're implying that administrators have, ex-officio, an expectation to entry in one or more channels. ] ] 18:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
**Presumably they will be handing Misplaced Pages's money back accordingly. ] 18:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
***As they've never received any in the first place (that I'm aware of) that should prove a simple exercise. ] ] 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
****Oh dear, I do hope the cheque didn't bounce. ] 18:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*****WMF gave a donation to Freenode, which is a free, open-source IRC network that provides much more than simply #wikimedia channels — it is in fact the largest FOSS IRC network in the world. None of the donation went to the people who you feel have wronged or conspired against you, it went towards the upkeep of an organization with similar goals as Misplaced Pages. Regards, —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*****Interesting, I didn't know about that. Well, go take it up with the Foundation if you like. As that donation was in the name of the Foundation, it would also include all the channels for the other-language Wikipedias. ] ] 19:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Well I think it was a lovely charitable idea, I wonder who thought of it, and in spite of constant appeals the foundation can afford to give money away. ] 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

*This is one reasonable approach to take. ] ] 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

**It is only reasonable if you start from the point that the channel is of net detriment to Misplaced Pages. Perhaps some dispassionate person should do a cost-benefit analysis to the project. I'd strong suspect that the net benefit is immense. (That's not to deny there may be some costs and problems.) I handle OTRS - in many instances I need help, second opinions, or oversight. I can't request that on-wiki for obvious reasons. I could e-mail, but that's inefficient. I'd have to e-mail dozens of people to guarantee a response - and each wouldn't know if it has been dealt with by the time they are reading it. The admins' channel allows me to call on, and discuss the issue, with a cross section of trusted people, and they is normally someone in there with the time to assist. (And yes, before someone points it out, some OTRS issues cannot be discussed even in that channel). Killing the channel would lose that, and I'm not convinced it would stop incivility. Frankly, I've experienced more incivility on-wiki.--]<sup>g</sup> 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
**Disaffiliating it would not mean killing it. And the issues with that channel are more than incivility. ] ] 20:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
***Well then I don't understand. If you disaffiliate it, what is the intention? If it is to discourage its use, then you lose the benefits or at least decrease them. You also forfeit some level of control. Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel. And wouldn't the 'issues' still continue? Either the intention is to diminish/discourage the channel's use - in which case you are saying it is a net loss to Misplaced Pages. Is it? Or you are not intending to diminish its use - in which case, what's the point?--]<sup>g</sup> 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*''"Will arbcom still watch over a disaffiliated channel''" Please someone, anyone tell me I have not just read that phrase, after all that has been said, all the lies told, is Doc seriously suggesting that the arbcom have indeed been watching over the channel all the time? This whole thing is sickening me. ] 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*Giano, the way I read Doc G, he is referring to the way ArbCom members are ''currently'' watching the channel. Things are being done, by the looks of it. Even if it is not precisely what you want done, can you consider stepping back for a bit to let things settle down? Then things can be reviewed in a month or so. Constant argument is not productive. Unless something really bad happens, please let things calm down. ] 21:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::I stepped back once today - remember? ] 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid I haven't been following the whole thing that closely, so no, I don't remember. ] 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

===Jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins===
Copied from ]
* #wikipedia-en-admins was proposed , given specific mandates and announced on the WikiEN mailing list . It continues, by all accounts, to be a place intended for discussion among wikipedia admins for wikipedia issues. The foundation donates money to irc in recognition of its importance to wikipedia. All actions there, including who becomes channel ops, should be accountable to the arbcom and the wikipedia community. The latest posting by the arbcom only partially acknowledges this , they need to do better. To start with, a complete review of channel ops should be done - on wiki and transparently (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --Duk 05:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If WMF and Misplaced Pages organisations like ArbCom have no jurisdiction over #wikipedia-en-admins then who does? The operators of the channel? If so, then the wikipedia community should choose who these people are (for the #wikipedia-en-admins channel only). --] 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*There's a flaw in your reasoning. The Foundation donated money to Freenode recognizing the importance of '''all''' IRC channels, and not just the English-language ones. #wikipedia-en-admins is a comparatively small operation (#wikipedia, for example, usually has at least 250-300 people in it). ] ] 19:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
::I didn't intent to say the money was in recognition of #wikipedia-en-admins in particular. Yes, I should have been clearer. ''donates money to '''irc''' in recognition of '''its''' importance'' --] 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I think you need to read between the lines of . The post says: ''"We hope it will help the servers to keep running smoothly"'' - ie. there had been problems with the servers (which also explains why it was a one-off donation). The post also ends with: ''"We also renew our condoleances for the death, 2 months ago, of FreeNode founder, aka Lilo."'' - this refers to the death of ]. My reading of the post is that the donation is to help Freenode through a difficult period following the death of its founder. The Wikimedia Foundation is big enough now to stand on its own two feet (and maybe Freenode is as well, I don't really know), but consider what might have happened if Jimbo had died suddenly (Rob Levin was knocked down by a car while cycling) during the first year or two of Misplaced Pages. Imagine the chaos that could have caused, and how a donation might have helped. ] 21:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
== References ==
Who runs the #wikipedia-en-admins channel and who do they answer to in that regard? What is the chain of command? And is the following quote correct? --] 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech)
:''...as per Freenode policy, any channel with the word Misplaced Pages in it is an official, sanctioned to, and belonging to the Foundation channel. It doesn't matter who wants to put what there, if its not offical, it can't go there...''
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024)
* (https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)
</pre>
{{cob}}
:One thing worth all of us considering, when dealing with potential spammers, is that if someone is using ChatGPT, as James appears to have here, that makes it a lot harder to infer their motivation, for better and for worse. That is to say, someone could be a completely inept spammer using ChatGPT to masquerade as a moderately ] spammer, <em>or</em> could be a good-faith editor who's made the foolish decision to rely on ChatGPT and has inadvertently used a spammy tone as a result. In this case, the deletion was definitely within reason under ], but it's a good illustration of why blocking on the first offense of spam is usually overkill, unless it's like blatant link-spamming ("for the best online slots click " etc.).{{pb}}Jimfbleak, I'm wondering if you maybe have some script misconfigured, or if there's a misunderstanding on policy here, as pertains to username blocks? I noticed ] yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{tl|uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as ''Onüç Kahraman'' is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


:Looks like they were using ], a script I also use. It is somewhat easy to select the wrong drop downs, or to use the default selections on autopilot. ] (]) 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
: If I remember correctly, it's ]. But who cares. Just shut the damn channel down already. —<b><font color="#00FFFF">]</font>] (])</b> 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


*I was prepared to ask the blocking admin to unblock but I wanted the user to show that they knew their text was promotional. I didn't see a username issue, but I'm not perfect so I was asking Jimfbleak what it was, if anything. ] (]) 22:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:
*:You've been working around username issues a long time, and doing a lot of good work. I think you have the necessary experience and judgement to see that there was not a blatant violation here. I really feel like we're falling down in our treatment of new users who aren't behaving maliciously but just don't understand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. I assure you I'm not trying to have anyone burned at the stake here, I just think we need to address these issues and be more willing to undo obviously incorrect actions without waiting as long as it takes for the admin who made the error to explain themselves. ] ] 23:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
: Try <tt>/cs access #wikipedia-en-admins list</tt>, but the highlights (in no particular order) are myself, Dmcdevit, Essjay, Jimmy, Angela, Mark Ryan, Mackensen, sannse, Uninvited Company, David Gerard, Kat, and FloNight. The "top dogs" are Essjay, Jimmy, and myself. I'm in eventual command of all Wikimedia IRC channels, by virtue of being "Group Contact Chair". The quote is correct, ish. We have an odd relationship with Freenode - I'm "officially unofficial", as it were.
: ] ] 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC) *::I get it, but sometimes I like to make sure that I haven't missed something. ] (]) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I'll repeat something I said in {{slink|User_talk:Tamzin#Administrative_culture}}: {{tq2|I think the root problem here is with ]. It begins <q>Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators.</q> I mean. ''Fucking seriously?'' Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration ]. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block. &nbsp;...{{pb}}So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If another admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't think the allowed actions in ] are all that problematic, though I do agree with you about the presumptions in the preamble. You can reverse if the following are met:
*:::# Good cause
*:::# Careful thought
*:::# ''If the admin is '''presently''' available'': consultation. So shoot them a message, and if they don't respond within a reasonably short period of time, proceed anyway
*:::Those three steps are not very restrictive. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::They might not be very restrictive in theory, but they are in practice. It's far easier to get desysopped for a bad unblock than for a bad block. In effect the rule becomes that you need to not just try to talk with the admin, but actually need their permission. That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy. Or to put it more simply: We can't all be Beeblebrox. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Thank god for Beeblebrox then... We can't have all the admins form a ]... Somebody has to be the "bad brick" for the larger society to function. ] (]) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::{{tqb|That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy.}}Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to having this become a policy. Of course, there should be some latitude for the blocking admin's discretion, but a block with no ] explanation should be able to be reverted by another admin. ] (] · ]) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::We've had a parallel to this idea in deletion policy (]) for like forever, and the world's stubbornly refused to end. I do worry somewhat about the effect it'd have with ]. —] 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::As one of the relative newbies around here, I've kind of assumed that the RAAA thing with unblocks is a hangover from the Bad Old Days of wandering cowboy admins who needed rules like this to keep the wheel-warring in check. I don't tend to mind following this gentlemen's agreement, since I value the second look. But it's the admins who make the bad blocks that are also the least likely to be affable about you lifting them. Then we end up with the problem Tamzin's described. -- ] (]) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*It's great to welcome new users and assume good faith, but Misplaced Pages will be neck-deep in spam if junk like the above is not handled firmly. If I had seen it, I would have ground my teeth and moved on because why should I get heaps from people who think there is value in "{{tq|These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.}}" There is more and more of this stuff, and soon people will be able to ask an AI bot to author and post their fluff on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Literally nobody is arguing that the page was acceptable or that the deletion was incorrect. The issue is the subsequent block and making the user wait, blocked, until it was convenient for the blocking admin to respond. If you found yourself blocked for reasons that were manifestly incorrect, would you not expect and hope that reviewing admins would reverse it? ] ] 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If I had been the user who posted that advert as their first edit, I would know why I had been blocked. ] (]) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::You seem to be entirely missing the point that this was an indef hard block because of the supposed combination of promotional edits ''and'' a promotional username, when there is literally no issue of any kind with the user name. We can AGF that this was simply an misclick, but we shouldn't pretend there is a real issue with the name because of it. ] ] 04:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*FWIW, I try to educate users as to why I have deleted their hard work with ] or ]. For the most part, I prefer to give them the opportunity to mend their ways in the context of ]. ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' It is important to try to facilitate that emergence, though sometimes a block is required to do so.] (]) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I want to second that ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' (well, perhaps a slightly modified ''Inside every disruptive editor is potentially a constructive editor trying to get out.'') One of the people brought on to talk about wikipedia in a recent ] piece described a vandal to core editor conversion sparked in part by effective and positive engagement on their talk page. ] (]) 02:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I do think we, and I include myself here, have gotten too hardcore about blocking over one or two promo edits, in particular when they aren't even in article space. I'm working on some proposals to address this right now. ] ] 04:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Something that reiterates "we tell new users that their sandbox is for screwing around, don't CSD them for screwing around in it" would be hugely welcome. -- ] (]) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just spent a few minutes chasing my tail looking for anything that makes it clear where the line is, and all I came up with is that you can't have attack content, copyvios, or other types of "not acceptable anywhere, period type of content. I didn't see anything about promotional content in sandboxes. If I've missed it somehow, someone please let me know where it is. ] ] 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tl|Db-spamuser}} covers userpages, which I guess personal sandboxes are a subset of, that's all I could find. ] ] 05:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, there isn't anything clearly explaining where the line is, that's my point. I've seen quite a lot of "good faith" promo editing tagged for G11/U5 in sandboxes, editors blocked for having promo there, etc etc. I'll happily do the promo username+edits blocks or vaporize chatGPT nonsense, but deleting/blocking someone for sandbox edits when the template right in front of their eyes says it's for experimentation is really over-the-top bitey, imo. -- ] (]) 06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe it's time we '''warn''' these users that sandboxes are not a completely safe haven to test whatever they want, because as I see it, the ] did not bring up the reasons why one edits in the sandbox might be deleted (whether from U5 or G11 or sth else). ]<sup>(])</sup> 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please think about the long-term consequences of a rule saying that anyone can post anything so long as it is in their user space, or marked as "sandbox" or whatever. Will we wait a year to see if an SPA refashions their spam into an FA, then (if not) add a delete request tag, then discuss the deletion request? That won't scale. ] (]) 05:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. ] ] 06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It seems pretty clear to me: it's potentially a gate to letting spam "articles" stick around 'because they're in sandboxes'. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If a sandbox is ''clearly'' G11, and IMHO we've become overly inclusive of any COI editing as G11, then it should be deleted. But the creator needs to be educated as to ''why.'' And yes, I share the concern about people using Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I know some would leap at any loophole. ] (]) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{yo|Beeblebrox}} Ah, yes. The Ghost of Wheel-Wars Past. Before my time really, but you can still hear the chains rattle after nearly two decades. ] (]) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


::::::::::As {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} correctly surmised, I use Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage script, and I'm aware that it's easy to select the wrong drop down, so I always check. However, it appears that in this case I still managed to fat finger an obviously incorrect rationale, ''mea culpa'', I can only apologise for that. I don't think that the G11 was incorrect, there's no policy that exempts spamming in userspace. I intended to block the account as being likely an UPE, given that their first edit was a full, highly promotional page about a company, and then left it for uninvolved admins to review the block. If asked, I always accept the reviewing admin's decision unless, rarely, they have missed something like socking or previous malpractice. I apologise again for the error I made, although I can't help thinking it could have been sorted out on my talk page rather than through ANI ] - ] 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Hi James (may I call you "Group Contact Chair"?) - just out of idle curiousity, just to humour me - which of those names above are '''not''' on the arbcom mailing list? ] 22:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I frankly agree. This didn't need to be brought here. He made a mistake- apparently I made a mistake by asking him to confirm that he made a mistake(even though clicking unblock bring up a clear message '''"Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error'''") okay. We'll do better next time. ] (]) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I realize that's for "accounts you control" but clearly there's some intention here that we need to consult with the blocking admin in general. ] (]) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. ] (]) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. ] (]) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. ] (]) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) ] (]) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{reply|331dot}} as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and ''re''blocked them, ''that'' would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. ]'']''] 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. ] (]) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*On a related note, I think we need to sit down with ] and ] and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs ''trying to do volunteer work'' seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*"we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.{{pb}}There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Misplaced Pages for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —] 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I vandalized Misplaced Pages with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Misplaced Pages because some grace was offered to them when'' they'' were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that , because who just ''knows'' wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? ''Very suspicious''.
*:"They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the ''possibility'' to become one. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::There's a difference between vandalizing Misplaced Pages for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point {{u|Cryptic}} refers to). ] (]) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ec}}As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —] 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to ]'s collections of your bad judgement? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. ] (]) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I fail to see how {{tq|"331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined"}} is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged <s>would</s> could be over-pinging. ] (]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::]: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. ] (]) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::@] @]. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. ] (]) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. ] ] 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). ] (]) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- ] (]) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once ] style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would ], rendering my point somewhat moot. ] (]) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{tq|I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor}} me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- ] (]) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. ] (]) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*: {{tq| But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so}}. I present {{u|JohnCWiesenthal}} as a counterexample. {{pb}} Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. ] ] 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at {{no redirect|IntelliStar}} which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. ] (]) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; {{tq|Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems}} is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For ''advertising'' of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. ] (]) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at ]. ] ] 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking ===
:::I don't know about the others, but I'm certainly not involved with the arbcom in any respect, beyond voting in the elections. - ] 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
* Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was ], exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. ] (]) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. ] (]) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. ] (]) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. ] (]) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- ] (]) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by ] and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- ] (]) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. ] ] 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. {{tq|I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others.}} -- ] (]) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Or, better, {{tq|My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question.}} -- ] (]) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::@] probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially {{tq|"The specifics of the example isn't the point,..."}}. ] (]) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here}} - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a ''long'' time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- ] (]) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic <s>]</s> ]. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per ] and remaining ]. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Misplaced Pages as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. ] (]) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


Looking through 331dot declining unblocks reveals quite a few instances where either 331dot or the blocking admin takes an extremely newbie-unfriendly approach:
::Then you've done a wonderful job managing 99% of the irc channels. #Misplaced Pages-en-admins is a special case - it holds a unique amount of power and influence, has special status from the way it was set up, and it has cause this incredible mess.
*] has now been unblocked by Philknight, but the approach by 331dot was not very helpful or newbie-friendly
::Do you answer to the community with regards to irc, the arbcom?
*]: no warnings, immediate indef block by ] for a misguided edit (not vandalism, just auto-promo): no idea why a warning wasn't tried first
::I'd like to suggest that the admin community from en and commons select the ops for this channel to serve under your leadership. I think that would address many of the fears, some of the pathological symptoms the arbcom has acknowledged, and maybe some of the underlying illness too.--] 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
*], no warning, immediate indef block by ], reasonable unblock request, denied by 331dot. This is the apparently unforgiveable, no warnings needed edit.
*], I can understand their frustration, I don't see the "blatant spam" they were posting, they were posting references with relevant information, but these included commercial websites as well as neutral ones. I don't see any company they tried to promote, no spam text, ... just a helpful editor who hasn't yet given up on editing here despite a way too harsh block by ] and an unhelpful unblock decline by 331dot
*] incorrect sock block, unblocked thanks to PhilKnight, but previous interactions with 331dot, including a declined unblock, were again rather unhelpful, just blindly believing that the block has to be correct


These are all from this month, from spotchecking some of their declined unblocks (a number of other declines were perfectly allright). ] (]) 10:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I would disagree that the ''channel'' holds "power and influence" - the people who hang out there have wiki-priviledges, and have influence through people's trust in them. It also hardly has "special status" - there are quite a few private invite-only Wikimedia-related IRC channels; this is merely the most publically-known.


:I blocked based on ] combined with promotional edit. Name represents a website that functions to generate income and the user posted a link to the site. Is that kind of block incorrect? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I can control the ''channel'' (in the technical sense), but I cannot control the ''people'' - I feel that a great deal of the concern in the channel is actually mis-placed, and should be directed at the members of our community with whom some have issues.
::Name of website (blog) is name of actual person, DJ Martin Dus. Link they posted was informative and relevant. The reaction to this is not some gentle steering towards "perhaps better a new username" (dubious if that was even necessary) and "please don't post links to your own blog", but an immediate indef block, and a declined unblock with a request for basically a complete plan for their future editing career. Apparently their error was much more heinous than someone posting blatant vandalism, who gets 3 or 4 chances before being blocked, and first gets clear warnings that it will happen. ] (]) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] it was well within the bounds of policy and reason but the name could be a stage name whuch changes the equation slightly. Ask 100 different admins, you'll get 100 different answers.
::I stand by my block of PaulSem based on the information I had at the time but my threshold for undoing my ''own'' block is essentially a coherent appeal or promise not to repeat the problem action so I've unblocked now I've seen that they appealed. That's not a criticism of 331dot because my standard for reversing ''another'' admin's action is much higher. ] &#124; ] 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the unblock, but I really don't see why that editor didn't just warrant some guidance, at worst warnings, for some of the links they included. I may well have missed it, but their latest edit added , which you reverted, after which you blocked. ] (]) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the edit wasn't promotional enough for you to even revert, it probably wasn't blatant enough to call for a block. Or to turn it around, this is like when I see another admin tag all of a user's creations as spam, or vandalism, or even attack pages instead of deleting them themselves; and after I delete the pages and go to deal with the user, I find that the same admin had already blocked. How can you be confident enough to indef a user while still being unsure enough about their content - the ''reason you blocked them'' - that you need confirmation from another admin? —] 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The lack of reversion was an error on my part. However, I do acknowledge that I had only seen the name as the name of a website, and not also as a stage name. I have been slow on reversing the block after seeing the objection raised here, because one of the lessons I learned from a previous block that I posted on this page requesting review, showed that acting too quickly on an objection can create havoc, when the objection —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Itself becomes controversial. (I am on flaky connection right now, sorry for the broken up message). Will unblock, revert edit, and discuss either user. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Cryptic}}, I see things somewhat differently, and I am among the administrators who often block for promotional username/promotional editing and then tag the content, usually G11, for review by another administrator, under the principle that two heads are better than one. In my mind, it is a check on myself to help prevent me from becoming too stringent and if another administrator questions my tag or my block, that helps me adhere to community norms. ] (]) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::So, what, you see a promotional page being made, figure it's bad enough to block the creator, but aren't sure it's worth deleting? What do you do if the deletion's declined? Leave the user blocked, even though what they wrote was acceptable? Unblock? How do you rationalize ''either'' of those outcomes as ok? —] 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Cryptic}}, the answer is clear to me but I will spell it out for you. If another administator disagrees with my assessment that the content in question should be deleted (or that the editor should have been blocked), then that administator and I would have a conversation. That could lead to content being draftified instead of being deleted. It could lead to a hard block being converted to a soft block. It could result in me concluding that I misunderstood and unblocking with an apology. It would not result in me ignoring the situation and leaving a contradictory outcome unresolved. As I said, I believe that two heads are better than one and I do not recall any other admimstrator chastising me with, "you should have deleted that spam yourself!". ] (]) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@]: Why not tag the page for deletion, then warn the user? ] (]) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Significa liberdade}}, because I am an administator and overtly promotional usernames are not permitted and call for a block. And an account with an overtly promotional username combined with creation of overtly promotional content calls for a hard block. I do not engage in friendly negotiations with spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia. ] (]) 03:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::]: Apologies, on a re-read I realized you mentioned username+promo. I thought you were just talking about a new editor creating promotional pages. ] (]) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And Cullen is of course correct by our current policies and practices. That's where I think the problem lies, not with individual admins but with the guidance provided to them, which I have been following for years myself. I do think {{tq|spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia}} is going a bit far in many cases and we need to try warning and education as a tool of first resort, as we do with vandals, instead of jumping straight to a block. I am very willing to delete spam, but I have come to believe that the no-warning blocking is not really productive or fair. ] ] 03:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:The best solution might be the simplest one: we need some new blood dealing with blocks and unblocks. Either admins who work in other areas should pay some attention to this, or new admins with a newbie-advocate philosophy need to be given the tools to work on block appeals. ...any volunteers? ] (]) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not an admin myself, but I'm always happy to help give advice to users making block appeals, and to make sure they're on the right track! ] (] · ]) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] is one of those newbie-advocate types who has taken up this work recently, and I've been on it as well. It needs as much new blood as it can get. It's also really helpful for non-admins who know their way around to help out the ones who have clearly misunderstood something (eg, someone blocked for copyright, a promo editor who needs to agree to abide by paid disclosure, etc). -- ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Happy to help. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


Help is surely needed, as the usual suspects just continue in the same vein, e.g. with ]. That editor needed warnings and guidance, not an indef block and and a declined unblock. No idea why was reverted, and while their addition was a promo link, it's hard to find fault with the reasoning from their edit summary. 5 Edits of which 2 were good and 3 promolinks but relevant and understandable = no warnings and indef block? Gee, I wonder why we have such a hard time finding new editors. ] (]) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::: In my r&ocirc;le of Group Contact Chair, I "answer" neither to the community (IRC, enwiki, metawiki, mailing-list, or otherwise), nor to the Arbitration Committee; in the end, I suppose I answer to the Board, but that is something that has never come up, so I'm not sure that there's a conceptual framework with which all interlocutors readily agree.


Are there deleted edits or something else I can't see here, there's nothing further in the filter log? ] makes two edits on the 11th, gets warned (okay), makes no further edits, and gets blocked indef a full week later on the 18th by ]. Why??? ] (]) 18:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::: I worry about accepting a concept of having a formal hold of who the "admin community" of a wiki is and isn't - were I to fail to talk to someone (through my ignorance), would it be seen as a snub of said community's ideals? I'd feel uncomfortable, I suppose - it's not my (currently) place to deign to designate the aristocracy of a wikicommunity. Note, BTW, that I'm a member of the Committee whose noting of fears you reference. :-)


::: ] ] 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC) :There are no deleted contributions. — ] (]) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- ] (]) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically {{tq|someone making a living by backlinking a website for a client}}and not just someone who is ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Misplaced Pages's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. ] ] 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. ] (]) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. ] (] · ]) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ] (]) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. ] (] · ]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check ''every subsequent edit'' manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? ] (]) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. ] (] · ]) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@], I think that's exactly the sort of thing @] is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he ''shouldn't'' be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- ] (]) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. ] (] · ]) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. ] &#124; ] 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::{{ping|Novem Linguae}} as the first technically minded admin I thought of, is this even within the realms of feasibility? ] (]) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.
*::::::::{{tq|Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful}}. A user script could be written that runs itself on pages such as recent changes, the watchlist, and article histories, and highlights edits by users that have been added to a wiki page containing a list of users to highlight. Or highlights edits by users who have been unblocked within the last month. So yeah, that's technically possible. ] is a good place to request user scripts if y'all decide to go that route. –] <small>(])</small> 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{tqb|{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.}}Yep, which is why I thought limiting its availability to admins watchlisting users they personally unblocked could mitigate the ] risks. Even more if it's limited to unblocks from the last, say, 30 days (although giving a specific timeframe might be an incentive for these editors to just wait it out, so a specific number of edits that will show up on the watchlist might be better).{{pb}}For your second point, a script could very much be feasible. I think there's a way to retrieve a user's logs by script to check the date of their last unblock, and from there it's just like an admin/etc. highlighter script. I might do it actually, if I find the time for it (and everyone, feel free to remind me if it looks like I'm forgetting!) ] (] · ]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::For reference, see ]. ] (]) 06:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


====Examples: HJ Mitchell====
:::: (The following comments on the above by Duk have been moved out of the body of James F's comments where they were originally embedded, in order to make it possible (for me at least!) to read James F's comments. In the following, I am inserting a brief reference to the paragraph to which Duk responds so that the context of Duk's comments can be understood. --] 13:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
{{ping|HJ Mitchell}}, per ], can you please explain why you blocked ] despite there being no edits between the warning they received for their first two edits, and your block a week later? ] (]) 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:HJMitchell addresses some thinking behind the block in ]. Best, ] (]) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::: ''I would disagree that the channel holds "power and influence"...''
:::: Then we disagree. The channel does hold a special place, not only in the way it was set up, but in who gets invited there. And also because of the special problems it has caused.--] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


::Thanks, but the same happens with other editors as well. ], warned on 11 December, one edit (not constructive but not problematic either) to their own user page the same day, suddenly blocked a week later? Nothing in the filter log, no deleted pages. If it was a sock, an indication in the block log would help. ] (]) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::: ''I can control the ''channel'' (in the technical sense), but I cannot control the ''people...''''
:::That one was reported to AIV (which is where most of my blocks come from) late last night. I misread the timestamps and hadn't realised they were a week old but didn't see anything to be gained by unblocking. ] &#124; ] 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: You can control who the ops are, correct? --] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


*]: none of their edits after their one vandalism warning were reverted, they seemed like a good faith editor, but still you indef blocked them. ] (]) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::: ''In my rôle of Group Contact Chair, I "answer" neither to the community (IRC, enwiki, metawiki, mailing-list, or otherwise), nor to the Arbitration Committee...''
*:That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. ] &#124; ] 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree, its murky, I don't envy your position. But now it has come up, in a big way. This channel is different since it was discussed and set up in WikEN-L, and the foundation partially funds it. --] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
*::Except they weren't, after the warning they removed or merged sections ''once'' and then proceeded to add (at first glance acceptable) sources to the same article. They were a good faith editor trying to improve an article, probably making errors along the way. ] (]) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @], could you please have another look at this block? – ] 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@] (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. ] &#124; ] 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Why is this here and not on the user's talk page? If you have a concern with an individual user, as is the case here, you should first try to resolve your issues with the individual user. That's step one of dispute resolution. ] (]) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree. I think this whole section should be closed and discussion moved there.
*: Somehow, I don't think that: ''"But we think our torches and pitchforks will be more effective here"'', is (or should be) a valid reason to skip steps in ] in this case. - and that's about as much AGF as I think I can give in this instance. Regardless of initial intent, this is starting to come across as a ]. The appearance of which would seem to be undermining whatever goals that those concerned may have. - <b>]</b> 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::To those concerned, it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue. That is, in itself, a valid perspective. Class-borne exasperation is not itself collective discrimination or punishment.
*::If you are implying this is shaping up to be a witch hunt, I have yet to see instances of magical thinking or confessions produced under torture. Instead, I see reasonable evidence for users' interrelated, reasonable concerns. Are people on WPO rude? Yes, and I see no bad faith in their incivility here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Not seen as magical thinking or torture? Welcome to ] : )
*:::And your comments do not address that this should have been - and should be - carried out on the admin's talk page, as ] noted. - <b>]</b> 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Remsense's comment directly addressed that, e.g. {{tqq|it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue}} and {{tqq|interrelated, reasonable concerns}}. ] (]) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Looks at the thread title ("Examples: HJ Mitchell"), and your and their comments. Uh huh, sure. Care to try again? - <b>]</b> 23:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Remsense's comment directly addressed whether this should be carried out on the admin's talk page, by using words such as {{tqq|not ... individualized}} and {{tqq|interrelated}}. ] (]) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Endorse most blocks; unblock Anushka Sweety Shetty'''. Procedurally, the OP should have discussed on talk with the user directly first; but setting that aside. For the first example, these are obviously low quality spam external links. All blocks are reversible given a block appeal. This is clearly bread and butter admin blocking and within discretion, and helps keep the quality of the encyclopedia high that we use discretion to quickly dispatch obvious troublemakers and spammers. The blocking policy is not a strict legal document, but a set of guidelines. The norms and practices should be followed, but not religiously. This seems like a good example where the logic is sound and where the action can be reversed easily if someone legit gets hit by a block, but it seems to me that this is just promotional spam. As to the second block, the account was evidently a vandalism-only account. We don't require warnings for this, AFAIK. Finally, I do think that Anushka Sweety Shetty was accidentally mis-tagged as vandalism, and should be unblocked unless there's a good reason that I don't understand. However, one mistake is not a big deal and can be easily reversed. ''']'''<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> 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


====Examples: 331dot====
::: ''I worry about accepting a concept of having a formal hold of who the "admin community" of a wiki is and isn't...''
{{ping|331dot}} per ], can you please explain why you declined the unblock of good faith editor ]? It seems that they needed guidance, not blocking in the first place, and certainly not a declined unblock with a rather unfriendly, unhelpful message. ] (]) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: We *do* have a formal admin community - it's here on the wiki. Come on James. --] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


:I'm not sure what it was that was "unfriendly" about my message. I try to be matter of fact and succinct, perhaps that comes across as unfriendly, but I'm not trying to be. As the blocking admin said when they removed the block, "we don't link to sites that sell things". That's spam. I was looking for some understanding of that point. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, but we've had a massive backlog most of this year and I was trying to keep it down. ] (]) 10:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:"we don't link to sites that sell things" except that we do this all the time of course. This was very clearly a good faith editor (their last edit before the block was ), not some editor interested in adding spam. Your reply "You were posting blatant spam, the issue is not poor references." was clearly wrong, and the editor just needed an explanation of why something like is not an acceptable source, even if it was added to be helpful and not as "blatant spam". Trying to keep down a backlog is not an excuse to deny good-faith editors their chance to edit and improve along the way because you don't have the time to actually look at what happened. ] (]) 10:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If you're trying to offend me, it's working. I did look at what happened. Say you disagree, say I was wrong, fine. If you want the perfect admin, that's not me. But don't tell me I did things that I didn't do. ] (]) 10:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::So you looked at what happened, and ''still'' called this "blatant spam" and sufficient to decline an unblock? Then we are approaching ] territory, as you seem to be having too many of these situations. I also linked above to ], who was incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry. I presume you looked into what happened when you declined the unblock with "I think that the reason for the block is correct. " or then continued to be extremely unhelpful by countering "If you could please check my edit history, you would see that I haven't done anything malicious." with "Your making edits is in and of itself malicious as you are evading blocks." They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment. ] (]) 10:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Please tell me what the acceptable level of mistakes is so I know never to make too many. I never said anyone wasn't sincere. I didn't have access to all the information. You are assigning motives to me that I simply don't have and I don't know why you, a former admin, have it out for me. Merry Christmas. ] (]) 10:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@] Please familiarize yourself with ]. ] (]) 16:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I am very familiar with it, thank you. ] (]) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I wasn't rude. I categorically, totally, in the strongest terms, reject that claim. ] (]) 10:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Okay, let's leave the rudeness matter to the side for a while. Tone is hard to convey on the internet. Let's also not accuse other editors of having it out for anybody, because when in the history of Misplaced Pages has that ever gone well?{{pb}}Just to try and steer things back on course, @], could you explain why you chose not to accept the unblock requests I posted a few days ago? And the others that Fram posted? I think understanding what your reasoning was when declining these unblocks, especially those of users such as Pbnjb1 and Cwootten13, will be useful for everybody. Mistakes are fine, but, and as an admin who monitors the unblock queue, you know this better than most, what other people want to see is genuine reflection and understanding. What went wrong in these, and what's going to happen differently next time? ] (]) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I'm sorry but it's hard to be told I'm doing things that I'm not doing.
*::::::* The user said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices. I would like to continue editing Misplaced Pages and request to be unblocked." They said they hadn't reviewed policies yet, and they didn't say what edits they wished to make, both of which would indicate their understanding of the reasons for the block. Quite often people say they understand when they actually don't. Yes, blocks are cheap, but trying to avoid repeat blocks is good both for the appellant and us. Nothing nefarious, nothing rude. Happy to hear what specifically I should have done differently.
*::::::* I said "If you lose track of which account you are using, you should stick to a single account." I didn't say it was an inappropriate use. They also incorrectly said a personal attack was made against them.
*::::::I'm happy to discuss other things with you but I fear drawing this discussion out more than it already is. ] (]) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Okay. Here we go.
*:::::::You selectively quoted Pbnjb1 there - which, I mean, I selectively quoted you so I can't get too mad. But they also wrote {{tq|I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.}}
*:::::::They very obviously demonstrated that they understood the relevant policies and had read them. How much clearer did you want them to be....? Please, elaborate
*:::::::Additionally, I don't think anybody who has seen that block has understood why it was made, because we don't do instant 4im warnings and indefs for newbies adding redcats. I don't know why you've expecting a new user to have to have understood something seasoned admins and editors are scratching their heads over. I concur with you about repeat blocks- they're bad for everybody's moral. But accusing other users of not having read policies <em>when they tell you information they could have only learnt by reading the policy?</em> I don't know what to say here.
*:::::::For the next decline- you selectively quoted yourself. {{tq|this makes it seem like you are multiple people}}. That's inappropriate use. You did accuse them of inappropriately using multiple accounts. Again, I don't know what to say. ] (]) 11:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Well, they said they read it and then said they didn't- what should I believe? A contradiction would suggest they didn't- but okay, I screwed up.
*::::::::I was trying to tell them why people ''thought'' they were using them inappropriately. I guess I failed at that. ] (]) 11:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::"{{tq|then said they didn't}}" Please, back this up with a quote, because they didn't say they hadn't read the policies and guidelines. They said they would look at the Teahouse to get a better understanding. There was no contradiction. They demonstrated an understanding of the policies in the areas they'd been making mistakes in, and said they would ask for help in areas they didn't understand yet. But, because that was in the past, let's say you came across the exact same situation today. What would you do?
*:::::::::I'll come back to the Cwooten13 block at a later date, just so we don't start spiraling off out of control. ] (]) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::They said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices"- which would suggest they hadn't yet. ] (]) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::....no? A better understanding != hasn't read something yet. In fact, the use of the comparative adjective "better" implies that they did read it, and they did understand it. Maybe not completely, but very few people understand our policies and guidelines completely, and especially not when they are a bran-new editor.
*:::::::::::And you didn't answer my question. Let's say you see that exact same situation again. What would you do? 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I would unblock them. I think this was just a difference in wording interpretation- which I'm happy to correct when pointed out to me. ] (]) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::So, an editor is incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry, protests his innocence, and you simply dismiss his protests without any indication why. They then point to their record of good contributions, and you again dismiss this completely and reassert that they were editing maliciously, but you weren't rude? "I didn't have access to all the information." In the first of these two blocks, you did have access to all the information, but still denied the unblock and called it blatant spam. In the second case, you didn't have all the information, but still proceeded to completely reject any possibility that the editor was right and summarily dismissed them. The issue is not "the acceptable level of mistakes" but what you do when those mistakes are pointed out. ] (]) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I can't do anything about mistakes if you don't tell me what they are. I'm always willing to change and adjust. I've never denied this. ] (]) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::??? Seriously? Perhaps reread this whole discussion top to bottom, it lists enough of your mistakes. Or if that's too much to ask, just reread my messages from today. ] (]) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I mean before now. "Hey, 331dot, just a friendly question asking why you did X thing when I noticed Y thing was the case". ] (]) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::So no actual reply to my post then. You claim to be willing to change and adjust, but give no indication that you understand what you did wrong. ] (]) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::"They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment." I did, but unsurprisingly many socks deny being socks. Do I get that wrong sometimes? Yes. ] (]) 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::The editor involved (nor anyone else) had any indication that you took their unblock request and explanation in any way serious, you gave no explanation at all, leaving the editor rather desperate: "Please, could you explain to me how this conclusion has been reached?", no answer. ] (]) 12:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::I have other things to do, and by the time I noticed that, someone else(a checkuser) had already engaged with them. I didn't want to pile on especially whem someone with more information was interacting with them. ] (]) 12:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::But it should never have come to that in the first place, if you had at the very least explained your reasons for not believing them at all in either your unblock decline or in your follow-up at the latest. ] (]) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. ] (]) 12:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::This is actually quite illustrative. We have a situation where several people are telling you that you made mistakes and they're discussing what should be done. This seems to have come almost out of nowhere and you wish you had been given a heads up before it came to this. You're not sure exactly why it is that they're approaching things this way, and even though you're expressing that you're acting in good faith, it feels like there's nothing you can say that would satisfy them. If you're getting frustrated, that's an entirely understandable response and I don't blame you. Imagine the frustration when you're told that {{tq|I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you.}} doesn't cut it and your appeal is denied. ] (]) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::I see what you're trying to do here. I get it. You say it "doesn't cut it" but don't tell me why. I do tell people why or at least attempt to. We all see things differently and have different perspectives, so maybe I don't always succeed. But I try. I'm not the perfect admin certain people seem to want me to be. But turn it around and try to see what I'm saying. I'm not acting nefariously, I'm not a terrible person. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::I don't believe you intend to cause harm. I've never done unblocking (obviously), and I imagine it's one of the more difficult admin tasks. My point is that there are parallels in terms of asking for assumptions of good faith, only that the newer editors don't always know how to express that. My suggestion, acknowledging again I've only been involved as an observer? Once a blocked editor tries to express good faith, the community as a whole should be more willing to help them express that. This is a ultimately a systematic problem. ] (]) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::::I agree with that, but that means ''more'' discussion, not less, and this thread was created because of a perception that "several admins" were "just standing by interrogating a user". It's my personal opinion, from handling and watching these over the past couple months, that repeated, snap declines are much more harmful than these longer conversations. -- ] (]) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Since this has devolved into focusing on single administrator's actions, I will ask that you either split this into a new discussion, move this to that admin's talk page, or collapse it as not to distract from what was supposed to be a broader discussion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I've turned it into subsections ] (]) 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: should probably be moved into relevant subsection. ] (]) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*This makes me curious, probably a good fit for the idea lab for further workshopping, but would it be an interesting idea to have a board specifically for ] questions? From what I've seen, asking on the talk page of the editor or the admin themselves gives pretty low visibility to the question and often isn't conducive to further discussion, or sometimes to getting a clear answer at all, while something like AN or ANI might be too direct or accusatory for a simple question. ] (] · ]) 12:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Perhaps the scope of ] could be expanded to include such questions? ] (]) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It could be, although AARV carries the presumption that the action was incorrect and should be up to debate to endorse/overturn, rather than a centralized place to simply ask ] questions with more transparency than the admin's talk page (where things like ] apply). ] (] · ]) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


It's difficult to see how other admins deal with unblock requests, as only open requests are easily findable. Looking at the open requests, I see
:::: The the channel in question (and possibly more, as you say) is an invitation only place that has accountability designed '''out''' it by virtue of secrecy and no logging. In reality, like minded friends go there and interact. It crackles with social energy. The arbcom (some of whom are regulars in that channel) has found "incidents involving gross incivility", only grudgingly after months of non-stop work by the victims, one of whom was threatened with banning while defending himself. They haven't yet corroborated (or denied) the allegations of character assassination and conspiracy. A quote from one of our articles (and I'm not implying criminal activity, this is just conceptual) - ''Under the common law the crime of conspiracy was capable of infinite growth, able to accommodate any new situation and to criminalize it if the level of threat to society was sufficiently great.'' So what's the level of threat when a secret, closed group allegedly gangs up on and trys to drive away some of wikipedia's greatest contributers? What other cases have there been where the victims weren't lucky enough to see the logs? What consequences have been given to the people responsible for this "gross incivility"? What is going to happen next time - when the victims probably won't be lucky enough to see the logs
], which seems from what I can see onwiki a very weird block, but as it is based on an UTRS ticket I can't judge it completely. Still, if it was paid editing the block seems to have come 6 months after the fact, not at a time the paid editing was happening (if it ever happened), so why a block and not a warning/discussion? ] (]) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Because it was a Terms of Use violation involving UPE. I cannot say any more without violating policy and documents that I have signed. ] (]) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::This isn't about on-wiki-incivility on vs. off-wiki-incivility. When it happens on wiki people get a chance to hear each other and are therefore on a level playing field to resolve conflict. When "incivility" happens in irc and the victim isn't there, it can be predatory and destructive, opinions and minds can be poisoned against the victim, who might never know why everybody starts treating her worse and worse and worse. --] 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? ] (]) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. ] (]) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Okay, I don't really understand under what circumstances that could be true, but I guess I have to accept it. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::] (and others), it is not a UTRS ticket, it is a ] ticket (presumably a ] ticket). People who are given access to the queue sign the ] (which is the same NDA signed by editors with CUOS). Best, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:@] I'm genuinely curious. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the ticket showed definitive evidence of UPE (because in my estimation as someone who can see the ticket, it did), do you think this is still a bad block in the way you have concerns about other spam blocks where the editor has stopped editing? I didn't become an admin to block people (I am a bit abashed I'm up to 175 blocks in my ~5 years as an admin) but I am closely following this discussion to get my own sense of community consensus about these matters. Best, ] (]) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the UPE is about the deleted article, then yes, I consider it a bad block. If there is more to it, which doesn't show up in the edits, log, and filter log, then it may of course be a perfectly acceptable block. But there is, as far as I know, no reason to automatically give an indef block for UPE instead of warning editors, certainly when like here they have made many other edits which seem uncontroversial, and when the paid editing is months in the past and not repeated after the article was deleted. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. ] (]) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


{{ping|331dot}} it turns out you were perfectly correct with this block, and at the same time not allowed by policy to convincingly explain it, which must be frustrating. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to the others who took a look at this one. I'll not bother you about similar ticket-based blocks in the future, as it is clear that I can't independently assess them, the one example I used was a perfect block, and you may not explain it in any detail anyway. ] (]) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: There have been numerous completely false and extremely damaging allegations of a conspiracy. The problem is that these absurd allegations have been taken seriously when they should--in the interests of the encyclopedia and the well-being of the community--have been rightly derided. The channel poses no threat to Misplaced Pages; indeed without this channel and others like it the work of Misplaced Pages administrators would be more difficult. --] 13:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. ] (]) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::*You know very well what has been going on, in addition to other matters, certain admins have arranged for editors to be wrongly blocked by other less experienced admins. The arbcom is aware of it, and are dealing with it (or have you been shown an arbcom mailing list which denies this?). Stop denying what you know to be true. Multiple logs have proved that the admins channel has been abused in a disgraceful way. The arbcom are only making this situation worse by allowing this matter to drag on, and people like yourself to make false and ridiculous speeches from decrepit and rotting platforms. ] 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


This was closed with the comment "Withdrawn by OP as explanation was deemed suitable. If anyone wants to harangue the multitudes, you may revert my close. ''']'''<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> 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)" but this is incorrect. While the second case was convincingly explained, the ] case was not withdrawn and was a bad block and bad declined unblocked. ] (]) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Tony, I'm guessing that this situation is doubly hurtful to you, since you've campaigned for openness (a year ago on WikiEn-L with regards to an admin-only mailing list) and offered permission to publish all your comments from #wikipedia-en-admins. Very commendable and consistent. Maybe you're worried about guilt by association of what the arbdom calls "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility", but the closed nature of the channel is preventing you from defending yourself, or from showing that the channel isn't always such a bad place. It could be worse - this discussion could be going on in a secret channel you're excluded from, where some of your worst enemies are grossly and uncivilly maligning you. Secrecy and censorship suck.


== Request for closure review ==
:::::But still, the main problem here isn't "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility", as bad as that is. Sometimes tempers flair and people get grossly uncivil, sometimes in self-defense. When it happens on wiki, back and forth communications and a road to dispute resolution is still open, people hear each other. However, when it happen behinds people's backs, in a secret closed meeting room of like minded admins with no intent of dispute resolution, then it's destructive in nature and corrupts our leadership and our culture. People who go down that road should take a long look at themselves and ask whether they are really interested in creating a 💕, or if they are more interested in power and status and destroying their enemies. --] 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::*:::I'm afraid Tony's mouth is only part of the problem. The crux is the arbcom itself, who are so ashamed of some of their members behaviour in this matter (and equally importantly the behaviour of some of their closest friends) they cannot reach agreement on how to solve the problem. If they had a grain of common sense, and feeling for wikipedia, the matter would now be firmly closed and finished, but they are torn between their loyalty to each other, and their duty to wikipedia. I suppose they should all resign if they can't reach agreement, but I don't think they have quite enough honour between them for that! So they will allow this to drag on rather than finish the totally discredited #wikipedia-en-admins which is the obvious solution. I had dropped this matter, but the arbcom's friends (i.e. Tony) cannot help themselves, they are so afraid that their power base is going to be completely destroyed they have to keep digging away seemingly unaware it is the admin channel's justly deserved grave they are digging. ] 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*What I find strange about this whole thing is your stance that the whole channel is (insert hyperbole here). It's a channel, no different than many on wiki pages, and there are various contributors to it. Taking the fact that there has been some bad behavior (actually I've not really personally seen it, I just take that on faith based on the number of people that have said as much) and equating that with a need to completely shut it down is equivalent to saying the fact that there has been some terrible behavior on wiki means the whole wiki needs to be shut down. Not very many people nor evidence back your claims that everyone in the channel is behaving terribly, nor that the whole channel and all it's participants are disgraced. In fact claiming that all participants in the channel are deplorable people as you have essentially done, just reflects poorly on you. The reality is some relatively small percentage of the discussion there ranges from terrible and regrettable to not helpful. Hopefully the current efforts will be enough to clean up the channel, and allow the useful efforts there to go on. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::*It dosen't matter if the "terrible" (which means what? just "incivility"?) accounts for 5% or 50% of that channel's activities, because we, the community, are not able to tell. If you wish to speak about "evidence" (which is not sensitive &mdash; and it is not) backing up anything, it needs to become publicly ''available''. Otherwise, invoking the word feels rather absurd. It was interesting to see how the Committee became divided over this issue, and how those whom I consider the more sensible arbitrators (before any of this happned) opposed the wildly pro-IRC "remedies" against Giano. But nevertheless, as a body, the Committee has been &mdash;and remains&mdash; far too equivocal, which, by extension, reflects poorly on it/you. ] 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::...''where some of your worst enemies are grossly and uncivilly maligning you'': Wow, Duk - that's some paranoia (no offense). First, this is the internet, not ] - nobody's worst enemies exist online. Secondly, ''are'' people grossly and uncivilly maligning you/anybody? And if so, how do you know? Personally, I've never been in an admin-only channel/list and never will, but I've never assumed that people are even thinking about me in one - I'm simply not that important and, respectfully, neither are most other non-persistant-vandals. '''〈<font color="red">]</font><font color="red">]</font>〉''' 21:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Please go read the very first sentence of this section; ''Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention.'' This statement is from the ]. There isn't a problem with paranoid people imagining things - instead, there's a problem with documented events that people are blind to, even when written down and explained (no offense, VEЯS). --] 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Thank you for your input Taxman. I remember well how you promoted Carnildo to adminship when it was quite clearly against consensus, and how the usual leading names from the channel trotted out to say what a good idea it was. While I'm here it would be interesting to know what exactly Tony Sidaway is doing in the channel anyway as he is not an admin. ] 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*Interesting that you jump straight to ad hominem instead of addressing the argument. It's clear from your biting sarcasm that you're not really interested in helping things improve, but that you're so emotionally tied up in conflict you don't see your part in causing problems. At least I made a good faith decision in consultation with other bureaucrats and can feel good about making a decision in the best interests of the project, and that my behavior throughout carried in it not the least bit of incivility. Can you say as much? But clearly it's not going to be fruitful to continue discussion. Steve brings a link to some pretty insightful words. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Perhaps Taxman, it is for others to see their parts in this. It is always convenient to shoot the messenger but in this instance the messenger is refusing to lie down and die. The channel has been abused, if people gather to discuss others in secret places, they cannot be surprised if they are accused of nefarious deeds, especially if they carry out some very strange acts following those secretive discussions. ] 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*I didn't think so. It is perfectly possible to give criticism while not engaging in behavior as bad or worse than those you are pointing the finger at. If you had maintained civility then there would probably be less controversy surrounding this, and more productive discussion, because the facts appear to speak for themselves. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Taxman, I realize that you don't know with any precision what has actually been going on in the admin channel, and still to a certain extent goes on. The evidence situation makes the discussion absurd, as El C says: the actual events must not be presented or discussed. I despair when I see the necessarily vague descriptions of "gross incivility", "character assassination" and "conspiracy" dismissed as "paranoia" above, and when I see you sarcastically suggest "(insert hyperbole here)". All I can do is make some bald, non-evidence-supported statements, and you, Taxman (and ''you'', dear reader), will have to decide if they bear the stamp of truth, and if I have any personal credibility. Thus: I know what goes on in the way of character assassination in en-admins because I've been ganged up on and attacked to my face, and I've seen others ganged up on and attacked behind their backs. I've seen admins asking for help in getting Giano blocked. The most distasteful thing I've seen there is the way instant decency has broken out when Jimmy Wales has dropped into the channel, and been as instantly withdrawn when he has left. I've sent my record of a couple of incidents to the arbcom, logged by myself and without one pixel edited, removed, or added; that's how the "numerous incidents involving gross incivility" were brought to their attention. (Perhaps other people have sent logs also, I wouldn't know. One neutral person, at my request, submitted his own logs for the same times as mine, and I hope that the two versions were compared.) Please don't shoot the messenger Giano—he wasn't there, though he is a victim of the bad channel culture—better shoot the witness if you don't believe me. One thing I've noticed is that when people actually manage to get hold of those or similar logs (not apparently a startlingly difficult feat, as many log the channel 24/7), they tend to stop saying "paranoia" and "hyperbole" and start saying "I'm shocked", and "I had no idea". (Quoting an arbitrator—I won't name him, but perhaps he'll name himself.) And here's an expressive small on my talk.


I would be grateful for a review of the decision to close the discussion at ] in favour of merging the article ] into ]".
Even if these things are true, why do I rake up the past, now that measures for cleanup are being taken? Several reasons: the channel isn't very clean, in my opinion—I've just decided not to go there any more, as there's now precious little support to be had, with both ] and ] having given it up in disgust. The new chanops no doubt do their best, in an authoritarian manner, to keep it civil; but they're not always there, and the more effective and proactive of them are ''far'' from always there. Is a channel that needs so much policing worth trying to keep on course? Its own culture is bad. Social meeting-places do develop cultures of their own—to say so is not indeed to claim that the members of it are all bad people, as you suggest in your ''reductio ad absurdum'' above. This one has a troubled past. In the very last exchange I saw in channel, yesterday, the policing was merely pushing the tone of discourse (in, as it happens, a discussion of Giano) from attack to insinuation. Secondly, the abusive chanops are still chanops, though they've chosen not to be active at the moment. The arbcom is, as far as I can gather, leaving them free to resume these leading roles at any moment of their choice. This, to me, is offensive—I actually find it hard to believe—and it seems to me a good reason to either shut down the channel, or open it to all. ] | ] 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
*Mcginnley raised this matter on my talk page, and I have responded there. ] ] 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*Note that I accepted from the outset that such behavior was going on, so you don't need to convince me. Terrible behavior goes on on wiki too. Should we shut the whole thing down? Deal with the behavior, don't throw out what's valuable. And no, I don't have any problem with removing chanops from people that have been shown to abuse them. I would hope that would be the norm, and yes, I would agree that's a problem if it's not happening. But it's also not shooting the messenger to point out that the way the message is delivered is making the problem worse. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*I'm disappointed that you insist on the margin rather than the center. ] | ] 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
::*Get real Taxman and put your own house in order first, This messenger refuses to be polite to a <personal attack removed> who feel they can be as abusive as they like in the secrecy of their own disgusting channel, and then scream incivility when anyone publicly answers them back or rebukes them on wiki. The arbcom are too reticent to deal with these people, so that leaves me no choice but to handle them in my own way, at least I'm still here which is more than many of their victims are, so perhaps my way is best for wikipedia. ] 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*I would hope the incongruity of refusing to be polite (while insulting others) at the same time as pointing out the incivility of others is not lost on anyone. You're just as bad as they are. Pray tell why should your behavior be ignored, while others are sanctioned for the same thing? Just because you're still here doesn't mean all your actions are helpful, or that there aren't better ways of approaching it. But again it's clear you aren't interested in following the civility policy, so I'll do my best not to respond further. I think my points have been made. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*It is a huge pity Taxman, but I suspect your hostility to me comes from these two edits here: and . Taxman you need to get over it, as you yourself say of me above "''you are so emotionally tied up in conflict you don't see your part in causing problems''" perhaps it is not me that needs to do some serious soul searching! ] 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


The proposal to merge was raised by {{u|Voorts}} on 30 May 2024, the day after the article was created, at which point the article looked like . Subsequently, there were three responses, two (including myself) against merging and one for merging (not including Voorts' "vote" as nominator). The final "vote" was cast on 3 June, at which point the article looked like . The discussion was subsequently dormant for a few months. On 1 October 2024, {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} . On 27 October 2024, {{u|Compassionate727}} performed a non-admin closure on the proposal to merge in favour of merging, at which point the article looked like .
I find it patently absurd to say that something with Misplaced Pages in it's name is not under the jurisdiction of the same authorities that police Misplaced Pages. If it isn't going to be answerable to these authorities than frankly I don't think it should bear the Misplaced Pages name, and should be usurped, or deleted. However, I'll also say that attacking the '''venue''' of the discourse is also patently absurd. People are people, and the people that are acting up on the admin channel would not be better people without it, I'm sure I can say. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
----
A friendly pointer to step two of the ] process. ] <small>]</small> 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
: Well for the past 4 hours it was mostly irrelavent stuff in the channel with some discussion abot currentdate template, DYK and Cplot, im never in the channel when most of the conflect occurs though ] ] 00:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I subsequently with Compassionate727 who declined to revise their decision (entirely within their rights).
== ] ==


I am therefore bringing this to the noticeboard to respectfully request a review of the decision to close in favour of merging. The main points I would flag are:
Anyone think it's time to call up his IP or file a ] report? I'm not sure how to go about this, and I don't know his IP range. But this is getting entirely out of hand. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:There is already an investigation going against his IP there... a second... the one under the ''68.30.65.203'' heading. -- ] 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


* I think the verdict that there was a "rough consensus to merge" is questionable.
He has recently used:
* The proposal to merge, and subsequent discussion, date from immediately after the article's creation and while the article was in the process of being expanded and improved. The latest vote for merging is from 31 May 2024, and the article has been significantly expanded since then. My view would be that, in light of the changes made to the article since 31 May, it would be reasonable to revisit the matter to consider if any of the arguments in favour of merging have been satisfactorily addressed. In effect, the decision to merge does not give weight to any improvements to the article since May 2024.
* 24.148.7.123
* On a practical level, it is unclear how the article could realistically be merged into You Like It Darker without running into ] or purging the vast majority of content. The article has not been merged over two months following the closure.
* 64.241.37.140
* 66.73.80.206
* 66.149.74.142
* 67.167.7.81
* 67.167.7.187
* 68.30.156.41
* 75.22.229.188
* 75.57.102.247


If the settled view of the community is to merge the articles on the basis of the discussion in May-June then I will of course accept that, but on this occasion I would respectfully ask that some more consideration be given as to the best course of action. Thank you. ] (]) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I suggest we start gathering a definitive collection, to be followed with ISP complaints and range blocking. ] 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
:Add:
*68.251.35.198
:To that list. --]] 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::I have seen a cplot ip blocked for a month. Since we blocked the ips for a week and did not work, I suggest extending to one month, until the investigation is finished. -- ] 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::My theory about Cplot, although probably flawed, is that Cplot is probably multiple people using different IPs. And yes, a ] report will probably help. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Of course, you can't have a single person with so varied internet accounts. -- ] 01:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I think that Sunstar means that it is being used as a ], possibly with access gained by the posting of the name and password to something like a forum or BBS, to be manipulated by multiple users to game the system. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Oh, gotcha. I suggest keeping a bot deleting posts that are over 60kb automatically :-) -- ] 01:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


:'''Overturn and reopen''' Not a single comment was made after the request was posted to ], and, excluding the nom's !vote, there is one proponent of the merge, who cited a concern that appears to have been addressed. There should be further discussion here. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* They'd have to be ''really'' dedicated to carry out this much of an attack on Misplaced Pages. BTW, I found a "parody" of Misplaced Pages, which is also called Misplaced Pages (confusingly enough), maybe Cplot can take his stuff there?? --]<sup>]</sup> 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:'''Endorse''': The sources added after the merge proposal opened are all about the book. The notability of the book cannot be inherited by the short story. Until there are several independent, reliable sources that establish the story is notable, this should be merged. The due weight issue can be resolved by cutting out the extensive plot summary and summarizing the reviews within the broader context of the book itself. Why not work on getting the book article completed instead of myopically focusing on one short story? ] (]/]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Overturn and Reopen'''. There's no consensus to do ''anything'' there, let alone merge. ] 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*Just commenting, because I didn't receive the expected notification, that I am aware of this discussion. I may respond in substance later. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
**Okay, I had to take some time to remind myself of why I handled this how I did. Basically, because it was proposed for merging because of notability concerns rather than anything in ], I treated this discussion as an AfD in another venue. The way AfD works, in practice, is that the subject is presumed to not be notable until it is demonstrated that it is—which, if the subject is indeed notable, is rarely difficult to do. As multiple participants observed, no evidence was provided at any point in the discussion that this short story meets the ]; indeed, opponents of the merge didn't even bother trying to argue that it does. Instead, they tried to fall back on ], but again, they failed to provide any evidence that King's corpus is a {{tq|common subject of academic study}}, and {{u|Οἶδα}} provided a reasonable argument that it probably isn't. The notability of the story not being demonstrated, I found a consensus to not retain the article, which in this case meant merging.{{Pb}}I would find it idiosyncratic for the result to be overturned to no consensus because of the discussion's low participation, which is entirely characteristic of merge discussions. I would find it vexing if my closure was merely vacated and the discussion reopened, as participants here are currently suggesting, because unless ''they'' want to join the discussion, doing so is quite unlikely to actually garner additional participation and will instead merely stall the consensus-building process. In any case, with notability still not being demonstrated, I'm guessing that a "no consensus" outcome will merely cause the conversation to move to AfD, where I expect the article will be deleted unless new evidence emerges. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and reopen''' per my original reasoning as mentioned above (I didn't get a ping though) and strongly echoing Black Kite. ] (]) 22:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. I don't believe this discussion has meaningful consensus, and as someone who works on literary topics it is a somewhat frustrating discussion to read. First, the story is notable: Stephen King is a literary giant, and therefore his publications meet ] No. 5. Second, the notability is somewhat secondary; the real question for a merge discussion is whether a standalone page is appropriate. We routinely treat notable topics as part of a larger coherent article because that serves a reader better, and sometimes because that is how the sources treat them. The questions that needed to be answered are whether there is sufficient content to justify a standalone page, and whether a merger would create due weight issues. At a brief glance the answers to those questions are "yes" and "yes", but more to the point, those questions weren't examined in any depth. Honestly, I think this is a borderline case where either outcome could be made work with good editing (the collection article could be expanded, such that a merger wouldn't swamp it). Finally, the discussion had four participants, evenly split on the question. Absent a reason to completely discard one set of opinions - and I don't see such a reason - I don't see grounds to close this with consensus in favor of anything. ] (]) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Derogatory comments and sockpuppetry ==
Time to knock on ]'s door and tell them to tell this guy to put a sock in it. —<b><font color="#00FFFF">]</font>] (])</b> 01:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Staler than a stale thing; nothing to do here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Administrators' Please block the users ] and ] for their disruptions and abusive edits on page: ]. Thank You ! ] (]) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


::This may be a ], per Teke's suggestion above. I'm sure some forum will probably have a thread somewhere on this. --]<sup>]</sup> 01:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC) :These edits are from over a month ago. There is no point in blocking these /64 at this moment. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 15:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] okay, I will keep an eye on this user. Will let the admins know in the future if they continue to disrupt. Thank You ! ] (]) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Request removing creation block at ] ==
::I just searched google for the terms "government" and "cplot" and came up with nothing but many questionable sites syndicating wiki content (including user talk) in order to increase their page rank. I also came across a Harvard law site with a involving a user called "thewaythingswork" which seemed to digress onto Cplot. Either there's nothing out there, or I need to refine my search terms. Could a proxy service be responsible for the numerous IP's? ] 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|result=Protection removed from ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:::Probably some ], if that's what Cplot's using... --]<sup>]</sup> 01:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
] was repeatedly recreated in 2008 after a deletion for Copyvio back in 2007 and was thus Creation Blocked. On ] after some discussion, we believe we have found sufficient references for creation of the page. On contacting an available administrator, they indicated that I should ask here. thank you.] (]) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Is that possible? The IPs resolve to major commercial ISPs. ] 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:If an editor wants to create this in good faith then I don't see why not, but I must say that I find this whole "Greek letter" thing extremely childish, so I certainly won't be editing the article. ] (]) 21:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, but to say specifically how might offer ideas if it's not the case. It's not a particularly common thing to see from average internet users, but it is possible.For example, my IP is registered to PlusNet (and yes, it's static), but I could still be running a proxy on a second machine for others to connect through. ] 02:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:The article was ]ed for lack of a ] under ], not for persistent copyright violation. I don't think a Senate resolution and a newspaper article from 1942{{snd}}which are the only two sources cited in the WikiProject discussion{{snd}}meet ]. I personally won't un-SALT the page until I'm satisfied that this is actually notable. ] (]/]) 21:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I always figured it was a bunch of guys from the same area working together, given the various Chicago ISPs listed in the suspected sock list. I don't really have any experience with this kind of thing, though. <i><b>]</b>]</i> 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:Hello, ],
:I'm not sure why you were advised to come here to ], the proper place to request a change in protection for a page title is ]. Secondly, you're best bet is to write a draft article and submit it to ], if it is approved, then protection can be lowered so the article can be moved from Draft space to main space. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Naraht}} I've undeleted it for you; salting wasn't intended to prevent a soild editor from creating an article in 2024; it was being recreated in 2007-2008 in unuseful ways. Because of Voorts' concern, Liz's idea of drafting it in draft space first, until you have all your ducks in a row, is a good one. But you've been here forever, I defer to however you want to handle it. --] (]) 23:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I didn't notice that Naraht had been an editor since 2005. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to ] ==
From a nontechnical angle my hunch is it's one person. A group of people would manifest a variety of writing styles. Yes, this means prolific and dedicated effort from one individual, but some irrational people are prolific and dedicated. This person ignored my repeated offers at Village Pump to accept evidence via e-mail and conduct an independent investigation. So while the emperor has no clothes, it's also human nature for the emperor to insist he's wearing fine duds while the crowd giggles. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:At one point, I began thinking they were common people who had been cheated by Cplot to post those comments there. However, noticing how the sockpuppets try to insert the text in as many sections as possible reflects careful planning. Suppose Misplaced Pages asked for confirmation whenever it detects more than XXkb of text is being inserted at the same time (a copyvio warning, in example), wouldn't that stop him from doing this automatically and also help catch some copyvio infringements, especially when ] is down? -- ] 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::So the question, is, now, would anybody like to call up SBC and give them the nastygram? (that's me honesetly asking for volunteers). We will need some checkuser information from Mackensen that we can email to SBC. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


REASON: It's directly mentioned in the article thus it's already immediately obvious. And because it uses characters outside the BMP, I can't create it myself so... ] (I ], ]) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I blocked an IP last night who was either Cplot or a Cplot wannabe which resolved to the University of Virginia computer lab. ]|] 19:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:] already exists. Not sure about the dot in front of it? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::From the article. <blockquote>There are no separate uppercase or lowercase letters as in the Latin script; instead of using capitalization to mark proper nouns, a "namer-dot" (·) is placed before a name. Sentences are typically not started with a namer-dot, unless it is otherwise called for. All other punctuation and word spacing is similar to conventional orthography.</blockquote> Seems appropriate for the forced capitalization of the wikipedia article, but I could see that going either way.] (]) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*]? Sure. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Done. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks ] (I ], ]) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Call for decisive admins to clear backlog ==
:I'm quite sure there are Cplot imitators out there. Cplot himself uses a few different ISPs. I'm willing to discuss via e-mail, but not here. --] <small>(])</small> 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


So, there have been persistent backlogs at ]. I had not worked the area in a while, and I assumed it was simply so understaffed that appeals weren't even being looked at. What I have found instead is that, in quite a number of cases, between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the ''exact'' edits they would make. I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock.
Maybe the IPs that originate from Chicago should be the ones that are targeted in an abuse report? :: <em>]</em> <font color="red">'''(])'''</font> 19:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Now, I don't agree with that approach as most of these appeals are from fairly new users and I was under the impression we were supposed to assume good faith and give second chances, not act like every unblock appeal was the trial of the century, and there is some terrible risk to just ]. However, the real problem here is that I'm seeing these long discussions, but then the reviewing admins don't ''do anything''. Even after asking the user to jump through all these hoops, they do not even get the courtesy of closure to their case.
Another IP used today by Cplot: {{IPvandal|24.14.241.94}}.--]] 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


So, I'm asking, pleading really, for admins who find themselves able to come to a conclusion and act on it to pleas help with this backlog.
Several more used today:
* 68.29.19.14
* 70.8.72.109
* 75.22.229.188
* 24.148.87.100
* 75.3.20.158
* 24.148.64.151
Range blocked for 6 months. ] 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm not looking to have a long discussion here about it, I'm asking for help dealing with it as it seems fairly out-of-control. ] ] 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== WikiPrograms that are not useful ==
:I'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with that characterization more. In some cases (and you didn't name me but you clearly include me) I have already reviewed and I'm not supposed to review again. I also have other things to do. And sometimes I forget. Nothing nefarious like its being made out to be. And yes, I don't want people to post here saying "that 331dot's wasting our time unblocking all these people who shouldn't be!". Is that so unreasonable?
:AGF does not mean accepting things on blind faith. ]; ]. ] (]) 22:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't believe I said or implied it was anything nefarious, as I don't think it is. I don't agree with the prolonged quizzes and goalpost moving I'm seeing in some of these requests, that's true, and sure, some of that is you but it isn't just you. It seems to me that we have an issue here exactly because too few admins are working in this area, and that group has developed their own version of "how it's supposed to work" that I do not think jives with what the community expects. ] ] 01:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What the community expects, or what you expect?
:::I'm not being disagreeable here. You and I have been around a long time and I think it's safe to say we've seen a lot of blocks and unblocks happen, and many discussed here and elsewhere. In my estimation, there's no consensus on how unblocking should be treated, because it's relying on admin discretion on a case by case basis. And questioning the blocked user to get more info - rather than ignoring and leaving them blocked! - was always seen as more merciful and giving the opportunity for AGF. We always have said that we as a community believe in the opportunity for redemption here. But not at the expense of disruption to the project. (See also ], especially the first line.)
:::All that said, concerning one of your comments, if an admin is going on vacation, a wiki-break, or whatever, then out of courtesy, they should note here that they are dropping certain tasks (like an unblock review) so that there is less confusion, and someone else can pick up the ball. - <b>]</b> 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:I do second the request for help, though. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 22:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, it appears to be the month for reforming or deprecating projects that have gotten out of hand (doesn't ] call for a regular pruning of process?) I invite people to take a look at ] and ]. Both purport to be pages that help new users towards overall constructive behavior, and eventually adminship. '''However''', both have gotten out of hand. They now steer people towards socially acceptable behavior as judged by the alleged RFA crowd. Thus, they reenforce editcountitis, as well as all sorts of arbitrary criteria like "an admin candidate must put X amount of work in AFD/RC patrol/AIV/whatever". This is certainly not good for the encyclopedia. Comments please on how to deal with this. ] 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:I have some hypotheticals in response to your implication that current admins staffing RFU are acting unreasonably:
:I am inclined to suggest we MFD them (see my comments on ] and ], but Editor review '''''used''''' to be a useful aid to newer editors before being subverted (perverted?) into its current use as a tool to shape user's edit counts so they perfectly fit the RFA hole, so I am reluctant to see it just cast asunder. Lose the school, redefine the aims of Editor Review. ]<i>::</i><small>]</small> 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:* {{tq| between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the ''exact'' edits they would make.}} SpamEditor is blocked for spamming links to their small business. They request an unblock, with the statement: "Sorry I just want to edit Misplaced Pages productively, I won't do it again". AdminUnblocker uses the {{tl|2nd chance}} template. SE complies with that template after two weeks, and submits an article edit. AU and a couple of other admins comment on it. BlockingAdmin is consulted per the blocking policy, but takes a week or so to respond because they're on vacation.
::Personally (having spent a good time doing editor reviews), I agree with Proto that ER used to be useful. While in the beginning most asked for counsel about how they handled a particular situation, what they could do to complement their current self, and why determined areas were useful. Nowadays, most ask advice about how to become admins. I am not sure, but "I think" it is because now the RFA page advertises it. While many would have posted their RFA, now they read the line that says ''If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try an editor review first.'' and ask the same in the editor review. Maybe, and it is a big maybe, if we change that line to ''If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try to get advice at Admin coaching'' then ER would go back to what it used to be. -- ] 12:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:* {{tq|I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock.}} MeanEditor is blocked for ] based on three or four diffs and without any preceding discussion or AN/I report. ME requests to be unblocked, stating that they won't make personal attacks ever again, and sincerely apologizing for their conduct. While reviewing the unblock request, AU looks at ME's edit history and sees that ME had also regularly added unsourced information to articles. AU asks ME to explain what ] requires and to provide an example of a reliable source. After a back and forth, ME passes the exercise and is unblocked. Now, assume AU hadn't asked those questions and instead unblockes ME based solely on the sincerity of the apology. The next day, ME inserts unsourced information into several articles, continues after a final warning, and is indef'd.
:::Admin school has serious issues, and I'm not sure they can be "fixed" - which would render ReyBrujo's well reasoned suggestion ineffective. An Mfd may be the solution; whether an Esperanza solution is adopted or not, the attention and input would be beneficial. I concur with Proto that Editor review has the potential to be a useful tool, but I'd like to hear ideas on how to redefine it effectively. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
: ] (]/]) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::We can't say "Don't ask about becoming an administrator", can we? We can't put a minimum threshold (5,000 edits or over), can we? We can't remove editor reviews that ask whether the subject would pass a RFA at this time, can we? Well, what we can is to turn the "unfriendly" switch to the maximum, don't praise users but criticize them, so hard that they will think twice before asking for another editor review or RFA. "I want to be an administrator, what do you think?" "With only 7 Misplaced Pages namespace edits? Sure, post your application on ]." But then, we would be biting them. No, as of right now, I don't have any idea about how to improve it. -- ] 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As a relative newcomer, I've just signed up for editor review because I'd like to be a better editor. I've made a specific request for advice in my submission. If people use it to fit RfA better, why not? Then again, if they use it to improve themselves, why not? What's the big deal. No need to delete it. The biggest problem I see with it is lack of participation from the experienced users, actually reviewing us. It takes a certain amount of guts to put oneself in the stocks... it's a bit disconcerting when few people can be bothered to throw tomatoes. --] 13:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
*The point is that the ''intent'' of the page is good (indeed, encouraging people to be better editors is obviously a good thing) but what the page ''actually does'' is not good (in that it actually encourages people to mold themselves to arbitrary standards that are allegedly but not really required to pass RFA). In that, it is gaming the system: it's going by the letter of the (perceived) rules rather than the spirit. ] 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:My own opinion of admin school is that it's basically telling people what to say at RFA. Nothing wrong with that if the person in question really ''should'' be an admin, but I think it's too easy to abuse to push unsuitable people through RFA and to trick, so to speak, the RFA voters. I would certainly vote delete at MFD. Editor review I think is O.K, if only as a way of preventing RFAs that are never going to pass in a million years. And it is useful, on occasion. ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::Per Moreschi, I'd keep ER if only to avoid giving Bureaucrats even more work. ] 13:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I have seen a fair few editor reviews that go like "I'm about to run at RFA tomorrow!!! Any last-minute tips????" - followed by "You're a complete newbie. You haven't got a hope in hell at RFA, and you need to seriously rethink your attitude towards adminship". That sort of thing is useful, I think, to avoid clueless newbie RFAs. But admin coaching sucks. Shall I wheel out my fellow deletionist cabalists to nom the admin coaching MFD, or does someone else want to have a turn? ] <sup> ]</sup> 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Per baby/bathwater issues, I've not experienced admin coaching, but the arguments against editor review don't, erm, hold water. --] 14:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


*I also want it on the record that I strongly disagree with Beeblebrox's removal of {{noping|KathiWarriorDarbar}}'s block, a block that three admins (including me) didn't think should be removed. ] (]) 23:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
One possibility is that the concept of improving as an editor (and possibly being more suited to being an admin) is becoming too focused on editor review and the concept of an admin school. There are many different ways of improving as a Misplaced Pages editor. Recently I tried to list some of the more interactive methods at ]. Maybe that would be a good link to have in the ''"If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try ... first."'' bit? i.e ''"If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to try one of the options at ] first."'' Though I've always been more in favour of the concept of learning by yourself, and improving by experience. Indeed, I was recently complimented on this quote:
<blockquote>
''"Enculturation really just needs people to talk more and demonstrate how they do things (rather than just doing them). Takes certain types of people to be role models. Actually following someone's edits, or meeting in person and watching how they do things, can be very instructive."'' (Carcharoth)
</blockquote>
My point is that there are many ways to learn. If we work to diversify the options, that might help any one area degrading and becoming unacceptable.


* We can also add to the record that Beeblerox unblocked Jisshu, who had been blocked for copyright violations. In the meantime, Jisshu had been contributing to Simple Misplaced Pages... where many of their edits consisted of close paraphrasing. As documented ], the editor immediately returned to adding copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages and has been reblocked. Although I'm all for clearing the backlog, it's also important not to be sloppy about it. ] (]) 01:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Right, now I'm off to post this in the other two threads on this matter. Please focus this thread on specific things, um to do with the Administrators noticeboard? Why the hell is this thread on this noticeboard anyway? <sigh> Gathering admin views on what to do with admin coaching and editor review? Fair enough, but this thread really needs to be focused and directed towards the places where the discussion should ''really'' be happening (and that is also an apology for lengthening the thread). Probably best to close this thread and direct discussion to ] and ]. And if there is an umbrella MfD nomination, can '''all''' the pages be listed this time, and the post-closing actions be planned a little bit beforehand? ] 14:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
*:I second this. I want to unblock people, but I also don't want to see them back, both for them(so they become good contributors) and for us(so we don't waste more time dealing with repeat appellants). Yes, blocks are cheap, and often ] is good, but not always. I also am aware of no policy that says only the stated/logged issue can be dealt with and nothing else, especially in the face of clear evidence. ] (]) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Your "clear evidence" is too often a brand new editor who was blocked way too harshly instead of being warned, and then gets their unblock declined because they didn't fully understand the block (how could they?). The previous discussion included plenty of recent such episodes where you were involved (together with others). I don't get why blatant vandalism gets 4 warnings, but people adding helpful links to informative but unacceptable sources (their own blog, a commercial site they don't seem to be affiliated with) get an indef block without a warning and then a very unhelpful treatment when they ask for an unblock. ] (]) 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm trying to balance being helpful with avoiding the user telling me what I want to hear(giving them the information I'm looking for). I provide help when specifically asked. ] (]) 10:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|add to the record}}? What record? The record of giving people a second chance and then being disappointed but not particularly surprised when they squander it? As far as I'm concerned that's how this is supposed to work. Simple unblock requests from newer users making a reasonable request for a second chance don't require a committee to deal with them. ] ] 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::No, El Beeblerino. It is a follow-up on 331dot's wording of {{tpq|I also want it on the record}}, which ] (I believe that it is likely you knew that question was false when you replied, but on the off chance you didn't.) --] (]) 04:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::But this was an editor who hadn't ''learned'' they were about to squander it! Did you think they were lying when they said they understood what paraphrasing was? If yes, why unblock? If no, why set them up for failure like this? -- ] (]) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::You asked them several questions and they gave at least semi-reasonable replies. They admitted they had copied material word-for word and said they would paraphrase in the future. You declined to action the report after all that, saying that someone needed to check their edits on another project for copyvios.
*:::<br>
*:::I read the appeal and the subsequent conversation and came to my own decision, which was different from yours. That's how it goes. It isn't personal, I just did not see it exactly the same as you did, and since you explicitly said you would not decline the request I took the action I thought was appropriate. I did not and do not see this as overriding your decision, but equally I do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do.
*:::<br>
*:::It turns out they didn't understand any of it and actually acted even more clueless than they had before the block, and were swiftly reblocked for it. I've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself, and added my own comments about how their behavior post-unblock was terrible and clueless. All we can do is try and educate newbies, which you tried to do. Some people are just unteachable, that's just the sad truth of it and I feel at this point that this is a ] case.
*:::<br>
*:::I think we have similar basic goals in mind, we want newbies to be given a chance, but your approach with the quizzes is simply not how I approach things. That's ok, we ''need'' diversity of opinion and approach in these areas.
*:::<br>
*:::As far as I am concerned, this specific matter has already been resolved. ] ] 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Honestly I suspect that exactly this reaction is what's actually going on here: admins are reluctant to unblock people for the same reason governors are unwilling to pardon people, because if they let someone edit and they do something bad again people will rightly-or-wrongly now blame the unblocking admin for it. ] (]) 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::What I do is add an event to my calendar so that I get a daily email reminder to check the unblocked person's contribs. I typically have several of these happening. This system gives the opportunity to give timely feedback if they are still not getting it, or to reblock if necessary. ] (]) 12:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] (and others): may I take a moment to recommend ] which lets you create reminders onwiki which then appear on your watchlist. You can even "snooze" them once they appear. Best, ] (]) 15:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Sob story''' About a year ago, I decisively tackled ]. It was exhausting. It was disheartening. I felt constant fear of making a mistake. That fear got worse when many of those I unblocked resumed disruption and were reblocked. The sense of achievement from the few successful unblocks was not enough to overcome the sense of stupidity I felt from the reblocks. I gave up. {{ping|Beeblebrox}}, you have renewed my willingness to make decisive (if high-risk) unblocks. {{ping|Tamzin|JBW|Asilvering}}, are you with me?] (]) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::<small>That's weird, because recently this page has made me want to hand back my barely-unwrapped mop. --] (]) 14:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::{{yo|DoubleGrazing}} Don't get discouraged. Remember it is a learning and relearning experience. Be open to feedback and adjust your focus and methodology as needed. ] (]) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm in a similar position. I waded in to ] some time ago to try and help clear the backlog and pretty much every case I looked at was seemingly already being reviewed by other admins. Despite the volume of requests in there, I found very few "virgin" requests where I could pop in and make a quick decision without overriding anyone but the blocking admin.
::I agree with @], we need to stop the protracted discussions. If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. If you're not sure, err on the side of assuming good faith; their edits can always be rolled back and they can be reblocked if necessary.
::Above all, let's not beat each other up if we make a mistake on that front. Assuming good faith is one of our central pillars and nobody should be lambasted or made to feel stupid for doing so. ]] 14:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along.}} Why is this better than having a dialogue, answering questions, and educating the editor? ] (]/]) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Two reasons. First, with limited admin resources, that time-consuming approach just isn't feasible if we want to actually get the backlog down. Second, as @] has pointed out, it often turns the unblock request into something closer to what ] has become, and none of us want that. ]] 11:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well, outside of the context of this thread, my answer is, of course, "you know my philosophy, you know I'm with you". I believe very firmly in treating people with kindness, collegiality, and above all, patience. That's precisely ''why'' I have been engaging at some length with blocked editors. Given the context of this thread, it appears that "decisive" means "with minimal discussion or delay". I've already watched one editor I had been interacting with get unblocked without any verification that they understood what was expected of them; that editor was ''so'' excited to be unblocked, immediately connected with another interested editor in the topic area... and was reblocked. I don't think that was kind, collegial, or patient, and I don't think it was just, either. If that's what being decisive is, I don't want any part of it; it's heartbreaking. -- ] (]) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{non-admin comment}} I'll gladly endorse second-chance unblocks that lead to disruption, if it means we can avoid reaffirmed blocks that prevent good faith contributors from joining Misplaced Pages. It's the difference between short-term disruption on a few pages versus potentially years of contributions lost. I don't object to talking to the blocked editor first to make sure the concerns are addressed, but the admin should go in looking for reasons to unblock rather than the other way around. ] (]) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{to|Thebiguglyalien}} Wait. You endorse unblocks that ''lead'' to disruption? ] (]) 16:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, I'm simply describing ]. ] (]) 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::😵 ] (]) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You 😵, @], but when it comes to low-stakes obvious vandalism and so on, I think this is fine, so long as the unblocking editor keeps an eye on the next few contributions to see whether the rope got used in the, uh, traditional manner. People who replace the content of an article with "pee pee poo poo" know what they're doing. I had gotten the impression from my early lurking at unblocks that this was unacceptable, sighed about the death of ], and resolved to bring it up once I had more unblocks experience. Since then I've only seen fit to apply it in cases where the block is quite old already, so it didn't seem like much of an experiment (and indeed, no noose-takers), and one other case with other mitigating concerns (I was immediately snarked at for this one, but so far, still no noose, just a slow-moving cat-and-mouse game I don't know what to make of yet). -- ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::ROPE itself says that sometimes these discussions are appropriate: {{tq|Sometimes those prolonged unblock discussions produce real results in educating the blocked user about why they were blocked and helping them to edit productively in the future.}} I've made ROPE unblocks, but I've also made unblocks where I've had a discussion with the editor. By ROPE's own terms, whether to do one or the other is within an admin's discretion. ] (]/]) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Indeed. I've done both as well. ] (]) 16:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::And I'm fine with that, as long as we're more forgiving to admins who make bad unblocks as opposed to admins who make bad blocks or are too quick to dismiss unblock requests by editors who don't know "the game". ] (]) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If Beeb had asked the admins involved instead of bringing this to AN, I think you would have seen answers like @]'s. This idea that people staffing CAT:UNBLOCK are looking not to unblock people appears to be coming from WPO editors assuming bad faith. ] (]/]) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That thread in particular has some extremely funny things to say about me. Recommended reading, really. -- ] (]) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm always amused when someone implies that I am under mind control from WPO. I assure you that I am quite capable of making my own decisions. Where the initial alarm bell went off is not relevant, I, myself, looking much further than the specific cases mentioned there, found what I believe to be a serious systemic problem in the unblocking process. I don't believe I said anywhere that the regulars in this area are {{tq|looking not to unblock people}}, I said too many requests were being discussed at length and then never closed, whether as an accept or a decline. That's not acceptable. What we need here, as I very clearly stated when opening this thread, is more admins working this area and more willingness to just make an up-or-down call on unblock requests. ] ] 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::"looking not to unblock people" etc. was in response to alien's point, not yours. ] (]/]) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::All this "that part of my comment was directed elsewhere even though the other part was clearly directed at you" is getting farcical. If anyone wants to '''help out with the damn backlog''' please jump right in. That was the point here. It's down to fifty-eight items right now, which is bad but not as bad as it has been some days. ] ] 00:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Beebs, you could save us all some time if you'd just tell us which users . I'm a little exasperated myself lately at some blocks that have been ignoring the ] especially with respect to new users, and I'd be happy to look into some but I'm not going to waste my time sorting through the drivel over there on the off chance that there might be a helpful comment. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:How nice to see locations of the targeted admins being brought up on the first page. ] (]) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ivanvector}}I have responded to one or two that were discussed over there, but I've mostly just been scrolling through the list and just picking them at random. I've found plenty that just needed someone to take action that way.
*:I admit I shy away from the CU blocks. I know those were moved back to largely being reviewed by the community but I'm not actually sure how we're supposed to actually do that. ] ] 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::And also starting threads here specifically about the admins and their specific actions that are being discussed there by people who are banned here. I'm not going to harp on this because I happen to be roughly on the same page, but do mind ] and ]. Regarding checkuser: I'm not sure what you mean by "moved back to the community" - all a CU block indicates is that private information is involved in the block decision, and for that reason the community shouldn't be reviewing CU blocks at all. Likewise checkusers shouldn't be flagging blocks for no reason. But if a CU has already reviewed the block, it's supposed to be good to go for regular reviews by admins or the community; I'm trying to be more explicit about that in the blocks that I review, if I don't just close the appeal myself. And like I said below: if you come across an unblock that's sitting idle because it's waiting on a checkuser, try flagging it with {{tl|checkuser needed}} so that the page gets listed in the table at ]. Stuff listed there gets the fastest attention. <small>I know you probably already know all of this, but I'm saying it anyway for everyone's benefit who might not.</small> ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] what's been ] has been CU blocks basically being appealable only to arbcom to being able to handled onwiki by any CU in most circumstances (and/or a CU removing the CU part of the bloack because there is no socking going on and letting an admin handle other issues that contributed to a block). Best, ] (]) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Ah. I hadn't worked this area in a while and I think I was on a break when that change was made, so I kind of missed the finer points. ] ] 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The unblock log would probably be shorter if some admins weren't so trigger happy. The other discussion here at AN contains quite a few examples of editors who shouldn't have been blocked so swiftly, and in the current unblock queue I see e.g. ], who needed an explanation, not a block. ] (]) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Checkuser blocks''' The blocks that have been waiting the longest for a response are checkuser blocks. I cannot unblock those, so I've not looked closely. Perhaps a checkuser could look at them?] (]) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I processed some from the top of the list that were marked as checkuser blocks - all of the ones I looked at had already been reviewed by a CU. I closed some but I am in meetings for the rest of the day. You might want to take a closer look, and perhaps consider adding a {{tl|checkuser needed}} if they are still waiting. There aren't that many CUs that patrol unblocks, but the template lists the page in a table at ] that we all look at. I think they also get posted to IRC but I'm not on there. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*Now seems like a good time to invite comment on ], my radical proposal for restructuring the system. It's already gotten some very helpful feedback from some of the participants in this discussion. Please note, this is '''still in the workshop phase''', so I'm not asking for support/oppose comments at this time. But I welcome any and all comments on its talkpage about how to make the idea better and/or more likely to pass an RfC. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Trigger-happy blocks are for sure another serious issue here, we need to work it from both ends. ] ] 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:If it were up to me, it would say, "If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, don't." -- ] 15:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:I have little to offer here, except to say that decisiveness is a virtue only if the decider is right. In itself it is very overrated. I wish that people, especially politicians, would be more honest and say "I don't know" much more often. ] (]) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Self-requested RM relist review ==
:My complaint about ER is that it seems to be a den of back scratching. Despite not being a very active project, I am constantly seeing talkpage notes like, 'Man, thanks for the props on my ER; I'll be sure to reciprocate'. It doesn't inspire confidence in the process. ] 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
=== Section break 1: crunch the numbers ===


I recently relisted ] but I'm not entirely certain if that or closing as not moved was the correct option. There were zero !votes in support of the requested move, and the nominator's argument misrepresented policy, but three of the oppose !votes indicated that they would support renaming the article to something else that accounts for the fact that the article also discusses another bill. Therefore, I relisted the discussion with the following comment:
Yes, I worry about the quality of some ] nominations that succeed. Part of what it takes to be an administrator just can't be taught: it's about temperament and judgement. I waited until I had 9000 edits, three featured pages, and shared authorship of a guideline before I thought I was ready. Yet there just ] to keep this site running if we set the bar that high. ] and admin school have their flaws. Yet I've been telling myself lately I ought to spend more time over there because we have to make a priority of ensuring that the growth of the administrative pool keeps pace with the growth of the project. If this is accurate we've got over 3 million registered accounts Misplaced Pages.en and 1090 administrators total (including inactive ones). There are systemic issues and long term trends at work here and we're kidding ourselves if we don't address them. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
{{bq|There is a very clear consensus against the proposed move, but some people have suggested moving to an alternative title that also accounts for the mention of another bill in this article. Further discussion is needed on that aspect of the request.}}
*Misplaced Pages.en has a sysop to user ratio of 1:2774, which is the third lowest ratio among all Misplaced Pages languages.
I've never relisted a discussion for a reason like this before, so I've come here to request review of if my decision was the correct one. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*That ratio has fallen steadily at this project for two years.
:I think this is an appropriate relist since additional discussion might lead to consensus on a new title or enough options for a ]. ] (]/]) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
<font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


== "Early" closes at AfD ==
::What about the active admins to active user ratio? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Heh, I'm the ''writer'' - most of you guys are the techies. It amazes me that you don't already have bots to track this and that I'm the one raising the issue. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Possibly if there's a feeling we need more admin's, people would like to run their eye down the list at ] and discuss nomination with anyone who jumps out as a likely candidate. Maybe we could all nominate one candidate each? ] <small>]</small> 17:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


The closing instructions at AfD currently says {{tqq|A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours).}} I have noticed that several discussions each day are being closed early. Most of these are less than 30 minutes early but I have seen up to 2 hours early of their 7 days/168 hours. If articles are being closed as keep, I think that's arguably defensible and relisting early when it's obvious no consensus will be reached definitely makes sense, but I have a harder time with deletions. Truthfully, I don't understand the rush, especially as most (if not all - I've only spot checked this) are being done with XfDCloser which warns you if you're going early - that is these admins are making a conscious to close early. Since we're talking a handful minutes it likely doesn't make a difference in the outcome. But for me the instructions imply closing before 168 hours should be more a IAR situation rather than several discussions each day and multiple admins doing it. I thought I would bring it here for discussion to see if it's just me or if it bothers anyone else. And if it is just me maybe we adjust the instruction (or maybe I'm just making normally out to be a stronger prohibition than it's meant to be). I'm specifically not naming any of the admins or linking to any early closes as I'm not looking to get anyone "in trouble", just trying to see where the community stands, but obviously all of this can be observed by anyone else who wants to go through the day's closes at AfD. Thanks and best, ] (]) 04:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Though the discussions will likely move elsewhere, I'd like to add a couple of things about ] (I am not much familiar with Editor Review). Admin Coaching clearly states, and has always stated, that it is not for the purpose of teaching someone how to do well in an RfA, or to teach someone what is needed to pass an RfA. It is about learning the skills that administrators use, so that when/if an editor does become an administrator, they are well prepared to use their new tools. How many of us felt nervous to delete our first page of nonsense, block our first vandalizing user, or protect our first page undergoing an edit war? Admin coaching helps editors understand the tools of administrators, and to learn their usage. Those editors undergoing admin coaching are able to practice deciding if something is appropriate to be deleted under the CSD, to learn when to and when not to protect a page, and to become confident and deciding what is vandalism and what is not. These skills mean that if an editor goes through an RfA and is successful, they will be well-versed in the tools they have acquired, and will be able to benefit the encyclopedia by using them in the best fashion possible. -- ] 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well, I for one would like real action and not cheap talk. The way to get ready for admin, and an effective admin, is to do RC or CVU and you will know how to deal with the vandals and dubious material. And to get involved in image tagging. Talking about it doesn't prove anything, my RfA participation works upon "]", not because somebody did a theory "Q&A answer" - I think that for anybody who even played sport or music at an amateur or school level, their coach or teacher would have said that what you gain in 15 minutes of actual playing time on the field or stage, can't be substituted for lots of practice. Personally, as soon as Essjay tweaked my access, I slaughtered about 50 pieces of rubbish in the first two or three hours . A lot of people don't have any proven skill in the mopwork and pass simply by giving the "politically correct" answers and then don't use them much anyway. In any case, if they get too smooth sounding without actually having done anything, I am likely to ignore their RfA and perhaps even oppose it. I would have to say that no practical skill improvement is gained from AC from observing the coaches, only PC, PR and toilet training. ''']''' (]) 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't ''overly'' matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Blnguyen, part of the coach's responsibility is to say, "go do this." It's not just about preaching to a user. ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). ] (]) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Oooh er, Natalya, I'm not sure. The damn thing even has a disclaimer: "Admin Coaching does not guarantee that you will pass the RfA. Ultimately, this is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your coach. So if you come here looking for a personal coach in order to pass RFA, you're at the wrong place." Either this needs serious rewording or it does make it sound as though the whole point is to get you through RFA, as does language like "Admin Coaching is a program for people who would like the special attention that only one-on-one coaching can provide" - and the purpose of the coaching is to get you through RFA, eh? I remember looking at ] - I mean, at one point, semi-ironically, Glen says "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts". Sorry, but even as a joke, your RFA thoughts should be your real thoughts! My fingers are itching over the MFD button, cause at RFA ''I don't want a product, I want the real deal''. ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
:::{{ping|TheSandDoctor}} I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours ''since last relist''. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. ] (]) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Part of the problem with fishing through the high edit count list is that a lot of the people who are on it don't wan't adminship or have failed nominations - or haven't tried because they know nomination wouldn't succeed. It's the people who registered last July and who raised a couple of pages to ] and are becoming active in one of the WikiProjects that we should look at, but mostly they aren't on our radar yet. So a couple of people have set up places where they can go. I applaud that. ''We'' need to be there too and honestly tell some of them they're good editors but maybe not cut out for this and foster the ones who seem to have the right stuff. If these efforts are undermanned - and a lot of things are undermanned because sysops are scarce - then of course they don't work so well. Now I'll put my money where my mouth is (or where my typing fingers are) and go follow my own advice. I welcome others to join me. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, ] (]) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I agree that there should be no difference; hearing "Depends if you want the "RfA" answer, or my real thoughts" makes me want to cringe. However, in my opinion there is still much potential, as long as the purpose of it is made clear to all participating. Is it bad to prepare people who may become administrators for the tasks they will have to perform? It doesn't seem so. -- ] 00:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Yes, {{u|TheSandDoctor}}, there's no requirement to wait another ''week'' following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. ]'']''] 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:RFA is so broken that experienced editors are scared to go near it until they're 100% sure they'll pass. This, in effect, delays potential admins for several months. I cite Newyorkbrad's current RfA as a primary example, and I can think of one or two other people who are as well. ] 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::You mean the Newyorkbrad RfA that is passing with 99% support? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC) ::::To be clear the AfDs I'm discussing have not been relisted; they're being closed before 7 total days. Best, ] (]) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{nacmt}} I was actually thinking of raising different modification: currently ] actually indicates discussions should be closed after they have been moved to ] (which is 168 hours + rollover of UTC day), which definitely does not reflect practice. I would agree that pre-168 hour closure should probably only occur in exceptional circumstances, though I can't say I've really been keeping track of them so I wouldn't know if the current rate is above my expectations. ] (] • ]) 12:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think his point was that Nyb should have been nominated months ago. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
::I haven't done formal math but based on having looked at this over 10 days of closes I'm guessing it hovers just under 10%. Best, ] (]) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That is true though, RfA is a very scary procedure to go through, because, if you fail, you are probably going to have to wait about 3 months before trying again. RfA is 'broken' only because there are too many people. RfA is more effective when the 'voters' actually know what the person they are 'voting' on's character is from personal experience, rather then using edit count and other arbitrary factors to try and guess. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I have been doing some afd closes and I have noticed this as well, probably done it a few times myself, when the result seemed unlikely to change. I usually start doing them less than two hours before midnight UTC though, which is three in the afternoon for me. ] ] 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Personally, I sometimes wonder if it would offer some real insight if it were possible to run a small experiment. Simply pick a pre-rfa candidate about to "run the gauntlet", (secretly, so as not to affect the outcome) collect opinions from existing admins on whether or not the candidate should pass if RfA were running perfectly and as it should ''ideally'' be (or perhaps based on ] alone rather than any arbitary criteria), and then compare that with the actual result. Maybe even repeat it a few times. The results may then be evidence either of a problem, or of the lack of a problem. I'm not saying that it could or should be done. I have no opinion there. It's just an idea I've thought on a few times. ] 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I don't recall you from the days I've sampled, but art of my thought here is that AfD seems more than adequately staffed at the moment. So what's the rush with any of these? Just let them play out for the full time and any of the many admin who are around can handle it. Best, ] (]) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just popped in there, all but one from today was already closed. I could be imagining this, but it feels like since I started doing AFD closes again last month, the other regulars have started doing them even earlier. It also seems clear that some of them are watching them days ahead of time, while myself I prefer to come in clean and just read the debate, but that's perhaps just a matter of personal taste. I agree there's no real rush, there's plenty of other backlogs that actually need help. ] ] 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, it tends to be only the kinda gross ones that end up on the /Old list. I've set myself a personal policy to not relist anything that hasn't made it to that page, but I'd also be pretty happy if we all agreed to only close AfDs after they ended up there. -- ] (]) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the issue is that ] ({{tq|To process an AFD debate listed on a day page containing debates ] to be closed}}) implies something different than the explicit statement in ] ({{tq|A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)}}), then the two should be reconciled in some way.
::I don't think that there is an objectively better answer here, but the current practice appears to be closer to the language in ]. Since, as ] notes, {{tq|technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors}}, I think we may want to consider tentatively revising ] pending future discussion. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Except old enough links to ] and only things older than 168 hours appear on that page. So I'm not sure I agree they need reconciling. Best, ] (]) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*As someone who has closed thousands of AFDs, I'll just say that closure times varies a lot over time (I'm talking years) and with different discussion closers. NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early, sometimes a full day or two early. I assume this is because they think a discussion looks like SNOW and they want to get the practice of closing AFDs. I regularly remind them to wait for 7 days to pass.
:And we have some admins, none of whom are currently closing AFD discussions, who consistently close up to 9 or 10 hours early. In the past, I have often left a user talk page note about these early closures and those notes usually result in changes in their behavior. Then, there is another phenomena at 23:00 UTC, there is often early closures of lingering AFD discussions that are due to end between 23:00-24:00 UTC. In general, I don't get concerned about AFD closures that are within an hour or two of the appropriate closure time but I do post notifications to closers who close AFDs half a day or days early. We have respected admins who are irregular closers who close a discussion as SNOW that doesn't seem like SNOW to me! I'll just say that while this phenomena might be getting attention right now, the situation is much better now that it was months or years ago. I also recommend that any chiding of closers is done as a general and gentle reminder to all admins, not singling out individuals as we always are short of closers and some of our worst early closers simply do not close AFDs any longer. That's my 2 cents as someone who spends a lot of time in this area.
:I'll also say that while I believe in the 7 day rule, we really get little discussion participation after the first two or three days, when discussions are first posted or right after a discussion has been relisted. We see little last minute activity in deletion discussions. That's my observation. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's what I've generally seen as well, although as you know I wasn't regularly doing them for quite a while until recently. I figure when it is the last hour for everything, it's probably ok to close slightly early unless you see a very recent post that makes a new point or points out sources not previously discussed. Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.
::<br>
::For the record I appreciate your pointers to me when I started doing them again. The ] is a real game changer, which is probably why closes are being handled so quickly, but you do kinda need to know what you are doing with it.
::<br>
::For those that may not know, the XFD closer does alert you when you are closing a discussion early and you have to affirm you are doing so deliberately. ] ] 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.}} I have to register strong disagreement with this statement. It's not my experience that most AFDs are closed hours ahead of time. I think that most closers are very respectful of the 7 day guideline and only close discussions early if it is SNOWING until we get to the 23:00 UTC hour. I think some closers, admins and NACs, have a SNOW bar that is too low (like 4 Keeps or 4 Deletes) but that is a subjective judgment on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
: I disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion. An AfD should be closed when the outcome is clear. A ] close is absolutely fine when the snow has fallen. An early close by a few hours is fine when, aside from outliers making weak arguments, there is overwhelming consensus for specific outcome that cannot realistically change in the course of the normal pattern of an AfD. ] ] 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, this seems like a good problem to have.
::Regarding, "{{tq|NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early}}", I've closed discussions as clearly keep on the seventh calendar day, but an hour or more before the clock completely runs out, and don't see an issue with something like ] where there is discussion and only keep !votes. I've also had several times where I read through the discussion, wrote up the rationale, and came back a few minutes before the clock ran out only to find the discussion already closed early by another editor. Closing early (at least for me) is to avoid duplicating and wasting effort.
::A technical solution to make collaboration easier when closing would be appreciated. I have no idea how the XFDcloser gadget works, but I'm imagining some kind of way to flag an AfD discussion not as closed but as "being reviewed" or something like that. ] (]) 02:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], I wasn't talking about all NACs or anyone specifically. I think it's just a tendency among NACs to be enthusiastic about closing or relisting discussions and so they can take action too soon sometimes. But NACs help out a lot and usually make accurate closures. IF I have issues with any editor, I bring it to their User talk page and they are almost always very responsive to criticism which, to me, is an essential trait on this platform. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@], gotcha, and I wasn't taking it in a personal way. I realize it can be hard to tell with just text. ] (]) 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Quibbling about a few hours seems to be clearly against the spirit of ]. If an the admin has time to process a batch of AfDs now but not in a couple of hours, it makes sense to do that rather than letting them sit. For many years ] has also implicitly encouraged this but colouring such discussions yellow instead of red. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The yellow is just for relists, as far as I can tell. An AfD that is about to hit 168 hours is still red. -- ] (]) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Oh! I've always misunderstood that then. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== On replacing crap lead image for Sophia Loren ==
:::::I think admin coaching, etc. shouldn't be about the RFA but about all that comes afterward, as in what the tools are for and what sort of stresses go with them and whether the kind of participation someone wants to do would really be helped by that - and getting to know the site well enough that they'll use the tools correctly. If they've learned Misplaced Pages well enough that they're ready for adminship and they've got the right temperament for this, then RFA shouldn't be a problem. It's not the admissions board at Harvard. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
{{Archive top|I have indefinitely blocked Light show for this latest knowing violation of their topic ban, as noted in the discussion below. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
As a topic-banned editor, although no one knows why, am I allowed to request that a piece of crap photo of ] be replaced by one worthy of her stature? I assume I can't request it on her talk page. There seem to be over a 100 of her on the commons, 99% of which are better than the one someone stuck on her bio. Try , for starters, which shows her at the peak of her career. An editor a few months ago requested someone "replace that crap crop" of ] on my talk page, which was accomplished.


Top Awards: Academy Awards: Best Actress: her the first actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language performance.
::::::Exactly. They will pass RfA when they are ready, and now they'll be ready for what comes afterward. -- ] 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Honorary Award: (1991) for her contributions to world cinema.
* See, I have a problem with the whole concept of admin coaching. Mentoring, yes, but being an admin is not something one should aspire to and work towards, it's something that should be suggested by others based on how they see you working within the project. Self-noms based on technical needs (template Wikignomes and so on) are fine, but "make me a sysop, I'll block vandals and delete everything emanating from ]" is a seriously bad rationale. Anyone who actively sets out to be an admin may not be here to build a great encyclopaedia. Plus they are stupid: the pay sucks and you get abuse from all quarters. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Golden Globes:
::I'd rather turn admin coaching into something positive then. Somewhere along the line each of us sysops learned what adminship is about and decided that was where we want to be, but the site isn't particularly user-friendly for editors who are interested in exploring that option. Rather than proceeding from a presumption that an editor ought to get sysopped and showing them how to jump through certain hoops, let's make it a place where they can genuinely learn what we do and see whether this is the right fit for their styles. Plenty of good editors are better off writing articles. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Cecil B. DeMille Award: (1995) for outstanding contributions to the entertainment world.
::: Well, suggestions are always welcome... ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Multiple Golden Globe nominations, winning Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical for The Millionairess.
Ouch! Durova, that hurts! Surely the first priority of all of us, non-admins and admins alike, should be just that - writing articles? ] and ], after all. ] <sup> ]</sup> 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Cannes Film Festival: Best Actress: Two Women (1961).
: Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that ''everyone'' is here to do that. ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
BAFTA: Best Foreign Actress: Two Women (1962).
Bishzilla have way better PC, PR and toilet training than that Newyorkbrad, grrr! Admin school diploma! Personal coach! Dispute resolution skills! Excellent edit summary usage. '''Not''' ripping off users' heads (that was newbie mistake!). Have not eaten user since ]! Will apologize posthumously to Bastique if required, will not destroy Tokyo! Give tools! Nom Zilla for adminship now or she show you unilateral! ] | ] 06:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Grammy Award: Best Spoken Word Album for Children: Peter and the Wolf (1981), shared with other performers.
:Eeeeeps! Here: ]. Remember to fill out the questions and accept the nomination before posting! &mdash;] (]) 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
7 Best Actress Awards, including for Two Women and A Special Day.
Golden Lion Award for Lifetime Achievement (Venice Film Festival): (1998).
Presidential Medal of Freedom (USA): (2019), awarded for her cultural contributions.
Career Overview: Number of Films: Over 90 films over a 70-year career.
] (]) 07:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
: It's logged . Reason: IDHT+disruptive edits. ] (]) 07:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Given that you've been blocked '''six''' times for breaching the topic ban, I would have thought it would have been clear why it exists by now. Not only that, but ''this'' request is also a violation of the topic ban, which you should have been aware of per ]. ] 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think one is allowed to use the AN board, to request a proxy edit to an area one's t-banned from. ] (]) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:No. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{yo|Light show}} It is concerning that you do not understand the reasons for your TBAN and that you have once again violated it. ] (]) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


== {{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}} ==
== 1 week block on ] ==


{{atop|Sulan114 is not eligible to file this petition. --] (]) 23:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Today I extended a 24 hour block against this editor into a 1 week block. The situation is sensitive for several reasons and I would like to get some feedback.
Admin targeted a User in October 2023 by making a redirect of users former usernames ] (]) 23:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*The blocked editor is the successful defendant in a case that went before the California state supreme court.
*The blocked editor alleges that ], another editor in her Misplaced Pages dispute, is an employee of the other side from her court case.
*Fyslee denies that this is true. He says he used to volunteer for that person's website and stopped volunteering a while ago.
*], Ilena's informal mentor, has been a heartfelt advocate for her. Unfortunately that advocacy, in my opinion, has become so counterproductive that I left a request at his user talk to change his approach or recuse himself.
*Ilena's post that prompted the block extension included a link to her personal website in which she identified Fyslee by his real world name. I consider that post to justify the block extension on several grounds - this element is particularly troubling.


:This user is not eligible to start recall, unless the rules have changed. ] (]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
There are two bright spots here. First, no one appears to have crossed the line into a blockable legal threat. Second, Fyslee has been cooperative about retracting objectionable statements when requested and generally responding well to feedback. ] and its tangled archive are relevant reading for this.
::Nor can someone elected to ArbCom in the past year be recalled. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.==
Have I handled this appropriately? I welcome suggestions. This is a tough nut to crack. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Belarus ] 06:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:People giving RL identities of editors (whether these are in fact the correct RL identity or not) actually on wikipedia, or linking from wikipedia to that information, can be blocked indefinitely if it is considered that they will repeat the action. I trust the link has been deleted. It has been considered that what is posted on external websites is outside our jurisdiction, as we're not here to police the internet. ] 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Add to wikidata.
:I agree. Bannable offense from someone who has been here to continue an offsite war and has contributed nothing of value to the project. ] 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Add the Romani article for Sweden:
:I just want to comment -- if people are going to go around changing ilena's text on talk pages, please do so by changing it to something like (personal attack removed) or (link to attack site removed) and sign, rather than altering someone's signed message to say something different with no indication of a change. Thanks! ] ] 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Sveko
::Good call. There were so many issues floating around at once that I didn't cover that one, other than to encourage strikethroughs. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Add the Romani article for Cyprus:
::: I have had some exchanges with Fyslee over this, although he is clearly insulted and annoyed by some of Ilena's abuse he does seem to be making an honest effort to resolve the conflict, fair play. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Chipro ] 06:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.
=== Indef block for this? ===
I guess I should give the question its section. I understand the limits of Misplaced Pages sysop authority and understand this is bannable. Due to the surrounding fireworks I didn't want to be the sole admin to make that call so I gave a comfortable margin for decision making. My opinion is that a Usenet veteran who carries all the baggage that implies and hasn't adjusted to this site in over half a year has already been handled with kid gloves far too long. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Bosniya_thai_Hercegovina ] 06:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Rather unfortunate. Clearly a talented person and could be a valuable contributor. But, it's just not that hard to get along. If not an indef block, how about a quickly escalating one? Looking through her talk page it doesn't seem she makes much effort to get along, nor understands the give and take of a collaborative site. Assuming that continues and she demonstrates no desire to change that by discussion on her talk page, then perhaps go with the indef block before the week is up. Linking to an editor's real name is unacceptable, so the one week block to sort it out is a good call. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.
::I agree with Taxman. It would be more fair to warn her of a possible indefinite block and give her a chance to rectify the situation. I also agree that the linking to a real name has to stop. ] 03:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana
:::I notified her of the ] thread when it opened. I've updated to state that banning is under discussion and invited her to comment or take conciliatory steps. Yesterday I gave her a link to ] so she's been made aware that a community ban is a possibility. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts
::::We don't need to be yet another battleground in her ongoing drama. There are other better places. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland
:::::Perhaps we could be a bit kinder than the above comment? At least giver her an opportunity to understand what the problem is and what the consequence will be if she doesn't rectify it.


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois
I do not see that she has been here a year and a half - I looked at her contrib. and it looks like she has been here since July 06. So about 6 months. Maybe suggest she try editing some different articles. And Durova's invitation seems like a good way forward.] 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania
: "over half a year" was the wording above. She has also edited under many different IPs (especially from Costa Rica), so it's hard to really know for sure how long she's been here, but she is definitely not a newbie, unknowing about how to make a diff, how to provide evidence, or how to make severe enough accusations about others that it got her sued for libel. The only reason she won is because of a totally new application of a new law that protects republishers of even the most defamatory material. No matter how unethical and immoral it is to do so, she and any other republisher is now totally protected. (The original publisher in this case is now awaiting an upcoming trial. Original publishers are not protected.) -- ] 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::You are correct. I misread it. Thank you for pointing this out.] 21:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/New_York_(stato) ] 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
BTW, I don't support an immediate indefinite block, even though I am currently the primary target of her accusations here. The suggestion of a "quickly escalating one" sounds good, with an increase in increments from the current one to a month, then to six months. After that an indefinite block or permanent block, considering the severity of the offenses, and in the light of the fact that likely no other user has ever gotten away with so much for so long after so many warnings. -- ] 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


*Hi. Thanks for this list of links but this isn't really the place to make content requests. If there's specific ] information in articles on other Wikipedias that could also be in our articles, then you should feel free to add it yourself. If you need help in how to do so, a good place to ask would be at the ]. Re the requests to add material to Wikidata: sorry but that's a separate site, you'd be better off reposting your requests directly at .-- ] (]) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't support an indefinite block at this stage, much less a ban. I encroached on this territory when trying to mediate ] and I don't think either side has behaved very well. Ilena's bad behaviour has been well documented, however, Fyslee, for his part, has editorialised about Ilena, accused her of "hate speech", posted links to a blog that attacks her and generally provoked and aggravated the situation. He didn't even try to pretend the blog was posted for any constructive purpose but acknowledged he was posting it for other editors' "enlightenment and enjoyment".
{{abot}}
The edits identifying Fyslee should be oversighted but if Ilena indicates that she understands posting other editor's possible real life identities is completely unacceptable and may result in an indefinite block, and if she promises not to do it again and agrees to follow policy, I think she should be allowed to return when the current block expires. I hope all parties become willing to participate in ] that Peter has started up and that they understand that we are not looking for a slanted or sanitised article but an accurate and unbiased one. ''']''' 11:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
{{ping|The_Bushranger}}, could you take care of (I assume) this person at {{IP|37.21.144.243}} rq? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sarah, this is a much broader issue than a content dispute on Barrett v. Rosenthal. It includes many other barrett related pages. In its current name this mediation request makes little sense. Especially since the disputes on the Barrett v. Rosenthal article are cleared up. Why not an RfC or does everyone seem to think these are too negative? It seems like a much better forum for such a discussion. ] ] 19:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Hey David. I do agree that the problem is far more widespread than just ]. In fact, it was actually on the talk page of ] that I first encountered them, having stumbled across from ]. I had a poke around and also discovered them bickering at ]. I would favour giving mediation a go first and failing that, I would support an RFC. I just haven't seen many RfCs actually achieve anything. They seem to generate a lot of words, but in the end they just sort of die off without any conclusion and everyone goes back to where they were when it started. Maybe I just haven't been involved in the right ones, I don't know. I understand what you're saying about the mediation request as it stands, but it can be renamed and refactored to include a far broader and more appropriate scope. ''']''' 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:This user's behaviour is deplorable on occasion, but as Sarah mentions, by the same token so has Fyslee on occasion also. Provocation is a bad thing on Misplaced Pages, especially when dealing with a touchy sitatuion like this.
:I think that both users, but esp. Ilena, should be told in black-and-white that if they do this sort of higher-end naughtiness, for want of a better word, again - ie. linking to attack blogs<sup>, Arbitration Committee in /MONGO, October 2006</sup>, speculation about real life identities<sup>, ''Harassment'' guideline, January 2007</sup> ''et al'' - they will be blocked for an appropriate period of time, even up to indefinite. It is '''then''' that discussion about a community ban may be appropriate. But for now, I feel it is premature.
:Like Sarah above, I wait with great anticipation of the end results of ]. If all goes well, and these users sort out their differences and problems, then all well and good. If it descends back into chaos and nuisance conduct, then the time may be right. But I'm not comfortable with blocking/banning this user right now, given that this situation is a two-way dispute which may be resolved. Play it by ear, I say. Cheers, ''']''' 11:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::Agreed, I don't want to make it sound like I'm giving ] a free ride here. The provocation has got to stop. Fyslee, if we don't see significant improvement in your handling of the situation, you're just as likely to be sanctioned. Both of you need to stop, tone down the rhetoric and attacks, and work with the facts. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Everyone would say I'm "for" Ilena, but Taxman said exactly what I've been saying all along. Ilena's behaviour is poor, and is regrettable, but so is Fyslee's, and we should not be giving him a free ticket. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 19:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*Which is the very reason several people have been suggesting an RfC. Such a forum offers an opportunity to look at both sides as well as a chance to mentor. ] ] 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::The previous threads regarding Ilena and Fyslee happened before Ilena linked to a disclosure of Fyslee's real name, which in itself can be bannable. From what I have seen, Fyslee has been reasonably responsive to feedback and appears to be making a genuine effort to abide by site standards. From the evidence that I have noted: providing a diff and subsequently behaving as if she did not understand what diffs are, then altering Fyslee's post header into something inflammatory while she accuses him of inappropriate action, Ilena's lease on ] is past due. She appears to be gaming our system. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::Regarding "Posting another person's personal information", could someone remove Ilena's repeated breaches from her talk page, including the two she made today ? I don't think she'll take kindly to my doing it. --] 19:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Done. I will request the diff be oversighted. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure what the real story with those links are, but if Fyslee has chosen to put his real name on that site then it's not appropriate for oversight. In addition anything that is available through a quick google search isn't really appropriate to oversight. It doesn't make it appropriate to add such links, but oversight is just not the proper solution. It's for things of such a sensitive nature that there should be no chance any admins should see it. I haven't seen the request come accross oversight-l, but if I do, I'll say the same. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* I would certainly support a final warning here. I am pretty confident that Fyslee will pull back from the brink, less so that Ilena will. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, her response at her user talk is entirely in line with her pre-blocking norm: it boils down to accusing Misplaced Pages of persecuting her. She's ignored my suggestion to enter ], which KillerChihuahua endorsed, and provides little documentation for her aggressive accusations. She hasn't supplied any additional evidence for her previous allegations or rescinded anything. It's as if she expects this site to accept ''proof by assertion'' or else Misplaced Pages must be biased against her. Per the discussion here I won't extend to indef at this point, but I hope some of the experienced editors at this thread drop a few words at her user page. The formal mentorship program in particular might be the best thing for her. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
:::We're talking about an intelligent, educated adult woman, editing under her real name, who, as an activist and campaigner, has something of a public profile. You wouldn't have been able to ''pay'' me to sign up for an adoption program when I first came to to Misplaced Pages and I don't blame her one iota for not wanting to sign up to be adopted. In fact, I would have been completely stunned if the response had been anything but what you say you got. ''']''' 02:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree with that on the adoption bit. But being an intelligent, educated adult makes her behavior all the worse. The recent diff show that behavior to be getting worse, not better, and does not demonstrate any desire to improve. Based on her repeating the same thing we made clear is inappropriate, it seems now she just wants us to ban her so she can be indignant about it. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've recommended ] to intelligent and educated people before. The ones who take up the advice usually benefit from it. Mentorship is about adjusting to site standards and - one would hope - avoiding problems. Most people would be more insulted by a long term block or a siteban than by a chance to improve their experience here at Misplaced Pages. When those appear to be the likely alternatives I advise mentorship. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Her behaviour has gotten both better and worse. When I first encountered Ilena, she was little more than a POV-pushing, linkspamming, edit-warring user. Since she's at least taken my suggestion to take disputes to talk pages, although her conduct there has been less than desirable. She has been responsive to my prompts, for some reason, and it's more or less why I have tried to mentor her, since she's been unresponsive and sometimes hostile to other's attempts at mentorship. Now since Durova appears to be threatening me with a block, I'm left in a bit of a conflict - do I keep on trying to improve a user's conduct to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and risk a block, or to "give in" and allow the encyclopedia be damaged by the actions of a heavy-handed administrator. *sigh* Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 04:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I want to clarify on that: I haven't threatened Peter with a block. I did discuss the possibility of a user conduct ] very seriously until I realized Peter had a death in the family this week. In light of that I've withdrawn the suggestion - which seemed at the time to be the only practical ''alternative'' to a block warning. I've been perfectly candid about this with Peter. He has challenged my administrative judgement repeatedly and I have invited him to raise his questions here (or in RFC - he knows I'm open to recall). So far he has declined to do so. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Is challenging "administrative judgement" a violation of a policy? Discussion of administrator actions, and even expressions of disagreement with them, seems to me to be a healthy part of discussions on talk pages. Any given administrator doesn't have a on refereeing or making decisions about disagreements. ] ] 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::That question seems to be rhetorical. This will probably get discussed in greater depth at arbitration, but of course editors are welcome to challenge my actions. Several times at Ilena's and Peter's user talk pages I informed them of several meaningful ways they could do so. I even initiated this thread in order to request community review of my decisions. That particular diff may look a bit awkward out of context, and if so I apologize. One of my trademarks when some thread gets particularly contentious is to ''blow the referee whistle'', which often succeeds in getting people to cool down. I don't know of any other editor besides myself who does that habitually so Peter's post did raise my eyebrow. It looked like an attempt to intimidate Fyslee on a very minor point, although as you can see I also asked Fyslee to comply in good faith. Peter took other and stronger actions at that page that did lead me to question his judgement and ask him to recuse himself. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:* ArbCom may well be a good way of solving this, since there is no real hurry and it requires a detailed reading of the evidence. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


== Blatant vandalism ==
===We need a new idea...===
{{atop|result=Article draftified, not vandalized. Draft creator blocked after personal attacks. Page mover encouraged to use scripts that inform content creators when an article is moved to Draft space (see Draftify or Move to Draft on ]). <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
OK, ] was rejected as Fyslee disagreed to mediation. I have been doing some further reading over the last two-three hours, and although I wasn't in the mood to compile them all, I believe that they both acted as bad as one another (literally, in no way metaphoric). Both have made problematic and/or disruptive edits to similar degrees at similar frequency, and without a formal place to discuss any solution I'm at a loss as to what to do next.
I created a page ] and put A LOT of work into gathering all information. Within hours, user ] simply deleted it. No warning, no explanation, no reasoning, just deleted everything. This is not the first time this user has arbitrarily deleted or undone my work and you can see on his talk page that other users have experienced the same type of behavior by this user. He just keeps doing it over and over again. It is time for someone to put a stop to this, because this arrogance is completely unacceptable. Please deal with this person and restore the page I created. Thanks. ] (]) 08:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:The article wasn't deleted, it was moved to ] with the comment "''not ready for mainspace, zero sources and zero indications of notability, there needs to be more than just a list of head to head matches to warrant an article, it fails ] and ]''". --] (]) 08:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
For me, there's only two options: ] them both, maybe even together (if at all possible), as well as some of the side-users to this who may ormay not have acted inappropriately. The other obvious one is ], and for me this is becoming more and more applicable given the attitude of Fyslee towards optional mediation (which Ilena may or may not share, I don't know - she didn't give a statement of intent at RFM).


::Then why doesn't this user communicate that clearly to a user like me? Is it that difficult to do that? He can take the time to move the article and delete links to the article I have created instead of taking the time to say, 'Hey, good article, but you need to add source'? The source is the official website of the ] and I collected all data from there. Notability? Styrian derby has been listed here ] for quite a while but over the last twenty years no-one had ever bothered to do the work and make an article about it. There are only four real derbies in that country and I created a page about the second most important one (apart from ]). Seriously, it is this kind of behavior by arrogant administrators that has put many people off when it comes to editing Misplaced Pages. Instead of valuing INFORMATION and thanking users for the work they put in, Misplaced Pages chooses to value admins of whom quite a few are on high horses. This is exactly why I stopped donating to Misplaced Pages years ago. ] (]) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm at a loss here, but I'll sleep on it and see if I have any other ideas in the morning. With this recent rejection by RFM due to the situation, I honestly can't see this being resolved outside of blocking/banning (whether full or certain actions/pages)/one user leaving the project without the assistance of the upper ends of ]. Of course, I'm sure everyone wants to avoid those three possibilities, and look for the common ground solution, for which I personally feel a RFC or RFAR will be needed to do.
:::You have been on WP since 2007. Isn't it obvious that ] has no hint of ] as currently written (and can a football rivalry have "Honours"?)? If you want this article to have a chance to "stick" in mainspace, try following the advice at ]. Find some great independent sources on this football rivalry, summarize them and cite them. ''That'' is ''the work'' on ''this'' website. You can ask for input at related wikiprojects, maybe someone will be interested in the subject. Moving that article to draft is not ], not even close. And fwiw, Snowflake91 is not an admin. ] (]) 09:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::: doesn't help much, but consider looking at , you might find something WP-good there. ] (]) 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I simply used the template used here ]. How does that page differ from the one I created? It only has a longer intro, that's it. The rest is all the same - data/info (which is what people want to see when checking about derbies). The original article (which I had also made a link to) doesn't provide more info either, but no-one decided to move or delete that one. There are many references to this derby online and people who search for the article will not be searching for info on 'what it is' (even though that is also clearly described in the first sentence of the article), they will be searching for a comprehensive overview of results, which I have provided. ] (]) 10:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqq|There are many references to this derby online}} Then it should be easy for you to add them to the draft article. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::And focus on the ones that show ]. ] (]) 09:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Draftifying articles that are unsourced and are mistakenly put into main space isn't vandalism. But ], there are multiple scripts available that many editors and page patrollers use to draftify articles and they all make a point of posting a notification on the User talk page of the article creator. Please do this in the future if you move an article across namespaces. Install the script and it will post the notice for you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I truly find this need to write a longer intro of what the derby is completely unnecessary. Go to ] and you will see the Styrian derbi mentioned in the fourth paragraph from the top. Go to ] page. What does it say under 'History and rivalry culture' and under 'Fans'? Nothing. It says one team is supported by their fans and the other team is supported by the other fans. Duh! Who would've thought? And the external links (notes #8, #9, and #10) in the 'Fans' section are ALL about violence, nothing more. My beef is with these double standards. One article in Misplaced Pages (such as ]) can stand the way it is, but an almost identical article about a separate rivalry is put under such scrutiny and shelved (draftified)? Utterly ridiculous. If the article I created doesn't meet the necessary standards, then neither does ], plain and simple. ] (]) 11:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Your article had precisely '''zero''' sources. It is ''never'' going to survive in mainspace without them because ] is a policy. As for ] - well, ] is a thing, but that article ''does'' have sources. ] 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:: ], I mean feel free to nominate ] for deletion if you want. Maybe check out ] or ] instead (which you clearly still don't understand what the problem with your entry is), the other article has an in-depth coverage from the national television station, like , and this alone would probably meet WP:GNG. Meanwhile, your article consists of 1 very short sentence in the lead section and a list of head-to-head matches, and 0 sources...close enough I guess? ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::: All the data I got is from this source . Is it sufficient if I add this reference/link to the article for the article to be deemed Misplaced Pages-worthy? ] (]) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Check ] again. The page you just linked doesn't even ''mention'' "Štajerski derbi" afaict. ] (]) 11:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Again, utterly absurd. It is the OFFICIAL list of all matches between the two teams as provided by the ]. The page ] which (under 'Matches') has links to match reports is using that same website as source. If that is sufficient for the page ] even though the Football Association of Slovenia website doesn't mention the name 'Eternal derby' anywhere, then why doesn't the same apply to 'Styrian derby'? This makes zero sense. And the solution is not to delete both pages, the solution is to allow both to stand as they are. This is a clear case of Administration > Information. Red tape. Unnecessary. ] (]) 12:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: No, it's called Misplaced Pages policy. No sources = no article. A source that just lists match results is not going to be able to source an article about a derby match, because it needs more than just a simple list of statistics. The Eternal Derby article, as already mentioned, has plenty of other sources. Is that one a great article? Perhaps not. Does it meet Misplaced Pages policy? Yes, it does. ] 12:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: This probably belongs to the talk page of the draft, but your info in this article is also fully wrong - for example, you claim that the first match between the two teams was played in 1991 (after Slovenia's independence), but you do realise that both clubs have played each other in Yugoslav football between 1961 and 1991 as well, right? The first match was almost cetrainly played during the ] season, as you can see that both teams played in that league at the time (and finished in 1st and 2nd place)...so this is also obvious ] issue. ] (]) 12:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::: One incorrect info is enough to mark the whole article as 'fully wrong'? That's simply a technicality that can be solved by noting that the date refers to the first match ever played in PrvaLiga, not the first match ever in history. Like I've said before, you are a control freak who stalks anyone who dares edit any Misplaced Pages article to do with your country and you see all 'outsiders' as somehow 'challenging your authority'. During the last week, you have come to my user page uninvited, while I was creating this page, saw that I was creating it, then removed something from the article I was creating (on my user page!) without even bothering to post why you removed that (you could clearly see it was 'work in progress') but never bothered to instruct that such an article may not be up to standards. You let me complete the work, then once I posted it live, you moved it to drafts. Pathetic. You're a stalker, period, and anyone who has ever made edits to articles related to your country knows this to be a fact. You follow my contributions page and come and 'edit' after my edits even on pages that have nothing to do with your country. Those 'edits' of yours are unnecessary and you know it. Again, I will repeat myself - you are a stalker. It's also pathetic that Misplaced Pages admins allow you to get away with what you do. Honestly, I no longer care. I thought this would be a good addition to Misplaced Pages, an article no-one bothered doing for over 20 years, including you, but you clearly want to assert your dominance. So, have it your way. But it's because of overbearing people like you that Misplaced Pages suffers, trust me on that. ] (]) 13:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: Bruh...firstly, I'm not "stalking" you, I simply have (almost) all Slovenian football-related articles on my watchlist so that's why they were edited after I "stalked" you; secondly, I removed inter-language wiki links at the bottom of your user page (which were abolished like a decade ago by the way, now you need to use Wikidata for that), because Slovenian article ] was literally connected and linked to your user page because of that, and thirdly, maybe use a sandbox (]) for working on articles, and not your user page in the first place. And I thought that you would add sources and write at least some useful prose from that "work in progress" article, but then you just published it with no sources and head-to-head matches only and nothing else. ] (]) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I've temporarily blocked NoWikiNoLife for the above personal attacks. I don't see any other admin action needed here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST ==
As I said, I'll sleep on it, but I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this, and any other solution ideas. I'm short on them, at the moment :| Cheers, ''']''' 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=As 184* points out, this is (a) apparently sourced and (b) a content dispute. ] is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
It seems that everyone is ] in upcoming Malayalam films. Certain editors, mostly IPs, are unnecessarily adding the term to almost every article about Malayalam films, especially upcoming films. Either they don’t understand what an ensemble cast actually means, or they just think it looks pretty. This violates ]. I've noticed this trend for several months now. Please keep an eye on articles about upcoming Malayalam films. Relevant entries can be found in ], ], and ]. ] (]) 09:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:Can you link a specific article this happened on, and which IP performed the edit? ] (]) 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm beginning to think that nothing short of the intervention of the ] is going to sort this mess out. There's been a lot of misconduct here, and it's not all by Fyslee or Ilena. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::This doesn't seem to be an issue for AN to deal with and I don't see the CRYSTAL issue mentioned by the IP user. Regardless here is a breakdown of the Malayalam category to answer the question: ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ] (At least, I believe this one refers to an ensemble cast); ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ] Mostly different editors. --] (]) 07:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Although I loathe arbitration that may be a fair assessment. It's disappointing to see that Fyslee rejected mediation. Based on the goings-on at Ilena's talk page I suspect an RFC would work out something like Jason Gastrich's did: a fractal business that leads to ArbCom anyway. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::: (106.196.26.252), (Arjusreenivas), (Arjusreenivas), (Killeri Achu), (SRAppu), (Mims Mentor), (2402:8100:3912:3e18:a17a:4a77:e0c2:5773). Even released Malayalam films are retrospectively changed, example: (CIDALEBRA20001).--] (]) 08:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yep, that's what I thought. I'll give it another couple of hours, then I'm going to force a resolution by proposing an ArbCom case at ]. I really ''didn't'' want to do this, but I don't feel there's any other choice. ''']''' 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::As per WP:CRYSTAL, ''Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Misplaced Pages does not predict the future''. These editors add speculative labels for unreleased films, which definitely constitute WP:CRYSTAL. Where are the ] for "ensemble cast"? --] (]) 09:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Just spot-checking here, the use of {{tq|ensemble cast}} in ] is directly supported by a reference in the article {{tq|In addition to Vijayaraghavan, the film boasts a talented ensemble cast}}. Given ] I could still see why some might be uncomfortable with that. However, as several users have added this descriptor, and it can at least in some cases be supported directly by reference, this would seem to fall within the realm of content issue and is probably best discussed at ]. There is also nothing preventing anyone from simply boldly removing the descriptor with an explanation from any article where it is thought inappropriate and subsequently discussing on a case-by-case basis if any reverts take place. ] (]) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Mass rollbacking my bot ==
=== Why I (Fyslee) didn't wish to participate ===
{{atop|result=Bot rollback successful. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Hi. I was running a task using ], which failed when it tripped a private edit filter. Could an admin do a mass rollback of its edits so far, while I wait for a response at ]? Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 09:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Do you want the two pages it created deleted? ] (]) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, that too. Sorry for the inconvenience. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{done}}! ] (]) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Question about ] ==
I am rather surprised to see my so-called "rejection" of mediation being discussed in a manner that makes it appear I did something wrong. Maybe I haven't understood what an RfM is all about. I have clearly expressed why I did not want to be a part of the RfM, but it appears to me that no one has read my explanation, or they do not agree with it and are not explaining why. I wish they would read the following and then discuss their reaction to my reasoning.


Would ] and ] be covered under ] and ]? The source on ] notes Urartu has a {{tq|significant role in Armenian nationalism}}.
* If I have misunderstood something about the purpose of the RfM, I would like to be corrected.


The reason I'm asking is the recently created ], which had very problematic sources such as racial sources from from 1957 . These type of sources are now removed, but see the ]. ] (]) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* If I have done something wrong by not participating, I'd like to know what it was so it doesn't happen again.


:In my opinion yes, they would: the combination of that "significant role" and the scope of both sets of sanctions being "broadly construed" is sufficient to include them. ]] 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
My reasons are clearly explained on the RfM page, its talk page, and a couple of other places, as well as the edit summaries. Here are the links:
::Thanks. Have verified that this is an Armenian nationalistic claim: {{tq|Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism}} .
::I'll add the relevant templates in ] and ]. And will remove this comment by non extended confirmed editor. ] (]) 14:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal&action=history
{{Archive top|This discussion has been closed as '''keep''' per ]. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)|Done}}
Someone please close this already as "keep", or "no consensus". Thanks. ] (]) 02:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:I am involved, but I believe that any outcome other than "keep" would be highly controversial. ] (]) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Isn't it too early? -- ] (]) 03:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


==Small technical question==
* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Barrett_v._Rosenthal&action=history
I was looking for a discussion at ANEW that I knew had happen (under "User: Policynerd3212 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Protection raised to EC)") as I had a link to the discussion. But when I searched the archives, this discussion didn't show up. So, I went to the archive page and it seems, somehow, between two edits, half the page disappeared even though that content deletion isn't visible in the edit.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=101444539

* http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=prev&oldid=101446810

Here are my statements in chronological order with the diffs (taken out of context, and without the edit summaries):

*1. If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding ]? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- ] 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

*2. Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- ] 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

*3. '''Do not agree'''. This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- ] 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

*4. Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. ''To the best of my knowledge'', Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.

: The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have '''nothing to do with the breast implant issues''', but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism. Bolen admits that he is paid by alternative medicine practitioners (who have run afoul of the law) to defend them. He does this primarily by spamming (yes the anti-spam community is very much against him) a newsletter which he himself describes as "opinion pieces". They are filled with conspiracy theory rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, and other forms of serious personal attacks, including libelous statements for which he is now awaiting trial. (Under deposition he had to admit that very concrete statements presented as absolute fact were nothing more than "euphemism".)

: The whole issue is about alternative medicine practitioners, producers, and scammers, who don't like their methods getting exposed to criticism on Quackwatch. Rosenthal is among those who doesn't like those methods being criticized, and without herself being criticized first, has gone on the warpath against Barrett. Anyone who happens to share Barrett's (which are essentially mainstream POV) viewpoints then gets attacked as "Barrett syncophants" or other epithets that are designed to make it appear that we are all working directly with or for Barrett, and are paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. -- ] 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC) &

*5. '''Misguided RfM that should be canned'''

: If there is to be any RfM regarding Ilena and the breast implant issue, then ] is not the right subject for an RfM. A different RfM that might be relevant (if there is any dispute there -- I don't know), could be titled:

:* <nowiki>]</nowiki>

: This current RfM is totally off-base. It was announced and presented on the page and in the middle of a discussion of Ilena's personal behavior here at Misplaced Pages, which had nothing to do with breast implants, so when I followed the link and ended here, I was baffled. There was no "connect" between the current controversy, the situation in which it was announced, the place it was announced, or the reality of the situation. It was like a long dead ghost was suddenly being introduced into another discussion. The proper thing would have been to create an RfC:

:* <nowiki>]</nowiki>

: This RfM is misguided, ill-timed, and off-topic. It should be canned. -- ] 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

: Copied relevant comment from above:

:* This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- ] 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This RfM was simply the wrong venue and misapplied, so the error was not mine, but the error of the one who started the RfM in the first place. It should have never been raised, but something does need to be done, likely an RfC. That would indeed be appropriate. The issue is her attitude and behavior anywhere at Misplaced Pages, not the content of the ] article. Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing. Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC. That's the issue here. Misplaced Pages should not be used to further her Usenet wars, especially since I have never participated in them.

Again, please explain any errors in my reasoning. I am trying to learn here and am more than willing to correct errors. -- ] 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

: '''Now I find this message posted to my talk page while I was composing the above''':

:* Since you have refused mediation, I have opened a formal Request for Arbitration regarding the matter. You may wish to make a statement. You may do so on the page ]. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

: Is this unnecessary and unprovoked escalation really necessary? I suggest that it be withdrawn and that the proposer (the same one who improperly proposed the RfM) disengage as he is not an impartial party to this matter, but has all too often favorized and defended Ilena in her actions, contrary to the first stated personal "philosophy" on his own user page: "I avoid taking sides in disputes." He has even prevented me from providing evidence in the form of diffs, and deleted them. -- ] 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::Every user has a right to request Arbitration on any issue. Mostly, it is people engaged in the dispute who file them. It does not matter who initially requests it, as everyone's behaviour who is listed as a party is scrutinised. ''']''' 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:::The request for arbitration was filed because there was at least one user (and apparently several) who believed there was no other way of resolving the disputes you are involved with. I haven't studied the issues thoroughly, but let me ask you this: Short of arbitration, what steps do you think can be taken to end this series of disputes so everyone can get back to peaceful editing? ] 03:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::::If I may...I am not a party listed in the Arbitration and have not been involved in the dispute, although I have edited this article. What I do not understand is why Wizadry included ] in the mediation, when Ilena only made one edit there, Fyslee had not edited at all there nor had Ronz. Please help me understand the logic in this? How did Wizadry pick his articles to mediate/arbitrate?] 03:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::::*The mediation was rejected and content disputes are not within the remit of the Arbitration Committee, so I don't see much use in discussing the matter further at length. Suffice it to say that is one place Ilena wanted to have her links added. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 03:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ok, I did not realize that. Thank you for explaining it.] 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to ], I was under the impression that the normal "chain of steps" would include an RfC, before the ill-fated RfM. I have attempted to deal with this situation by providing Ilena with an to document her serious allegations against me. She has not only refused my requests to provide documentation, she has also refused everyone else's requests to do so (and many have done so), and considers repetitions of the same allegations as the same as documentation. They are not. They are continued attacks. I dispute her allegations. That does not mean I deny that they may be based on some fact in reality. I consider them to be her gross misrepresentations designed to damage my reputation. She does this on her websites and here at Misplaced Pages, and such behavior is not allowed here. The editor who voluntarily (and commendably!) chose to mentor her unfortunately ended up favorizing her and thus "aided and abetted" her in her course of action, and even immediately deleted (before examining her allegation) my provision of documentation for one of her clear untruths. I then reworded it and added it back, where it . It was a classic example of her typical method of misrepresenting matters. After he did that, I lost faith in his neutrality and in any hope of my being able to defend myself properly. This left her allegations standing without any real defense from my side. They are still there, and she knows perfectly well that having them at Misplaced Pages will cause search engines to help her in her agenda against me. Undocumented charges should not be allowed to be made or left standing. Please read them, and '''do not believe them''' before examining my side of the story, which I will gladly provide once she has provided evidence. Right now the allegations are so jumbled a mess that it is nearly impossible to be sure where to start. If she will follow the , then I will have a starting point. -- ] 10:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:: "Favoritizing"? I'm sorry, but after reading all this I'm going to stick you in the exact same catagory as Ilena. And when you start tossing out words like favoritizing, I tend to see someone not assuming good faith. Should I blindly accuse Durova of "favoritizing" you? What a crock. RfAr can be brought by anyone who feels it's neccessary. If the ArbCom thinks differently, they won't accept it. If they accept it, and if you "really" did all you good to fix this dispute, then you have nothing to worry about. --<font face="Verdana">]]]<small><sup>]|]</sup></small></font> 10:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Elara, I don't think it helps this situation to call something ''a crock''. From the post Fyslee left at my page it seems that he loathes the hassle of arbitration. Having been through a few cases myself I share the sentiment. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::It's no excuse for temper-tantrums or name calling. Misplaced Pages has a ]. Occasional lapses are forgivable, but continued incivility is a breach of policy, and more importantly, it is harmful to the Wiki. Tangentially, "I don't like it" isn't really held as a strong argument on Misplaced Pages at all, last time I checked ] anyways. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Fair use issue ==

I noticed that this image ] which is listed as being usable only to "illustrate the organization, item, or event in question" is being used in the following places, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of fair use on the image:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] (its a userspaced article, but a placeholder can be put in until or if this returns to article space)
*] same

I'd remove them myself, but I just had a disagreement with one of the users in question and wouldn't want to be seen as harassing them, and it might look odd if I cleaned those all up but one. If there is an image page to report this, I'd appreciate a link.--] 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

: I've removed them all. In short, I don't think there is a good place to do this, but most administrators, myself included, will do such removals. ] (]) 17:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:Next time feel free to do it yourself, quoting ] or simply ] (fair use images can only be used in the article namespace). -- ] 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::Ya, the RIAA especially is pretty possessive about it's copyrights. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:::As I said, I'd just had a disagreement with one of the editors so I didn't want to appear as harassing them.--] 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

::A wise precaution. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

:What about those two other articles which are linked to the photo? Surely those "lists" of TV and Radio stations don't need the the "fair use" picture. They could use a reference. Perhaps someone could place this discussion in archive or link to the picture? --] 00:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== ]/SEO world championship -- expect a spam onslaught. ==

FYI -- ] is the name of a new spam article -- and the name of a SEO (]) ]. In a nutshell, the goal is to "optimize" (i.e., spam) enough links around the web as to make your site show up ahead of everyone else's. See this discussion: ] and check out our new article above. (And consider deleting it after you look at it). --] ] 03:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:Wow -- that was fast -- thanks for the deletion. For the curious, I had already saved a copy to a user subpage at ]. When we get the chance, folks at ] will start checking the links to see if we have any on article pages. And don't worry -- all links on non-article pages are coded by ] as ], so no spammer gets a page ranking boost from those links when they're on a user page.--] ] 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::The contest started January 15th, 2007 and will end in May 1st, 2007 so this will be a long drawn-out P.I.A assault. I'd expect all language versions will be aflicted. Keyphrase is "globalwarming awareness2007" so be aware of references or articles relating to this. --] 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:Looks like the links to the site should be spam blacklisted. ]|] 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
*The article should be deleted and salted to prevent it being used, and links posted in conjuntion to it should be meta blacklisted as appropriate. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 06:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:*I've salted the article. ] 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::You mean protected. There's no need to bastardise English. ] (]) 12:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::::] :> -<font color="#FF0000">]</font>] (])<small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::As every domain on the list was created on Jan 15 or after for this contest, we won't lose anything if we blacklist every single one and they won't be tempted to abuse wikipedia to play their sick little spammer games. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::*This would probably help stem it, but there will still be other domains they will come up with, I am sure, so continued vigilance should of course be advised :) Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 08:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

*I just thought I would pop by an place a slightly different perspective on this. I am someone who works with SEO, but have never spammed Misplaced Pages, in fact the main reason I created this account in the past was to remove spam from entries I saw.
There are legitimate ways to SEO websites without spamming. The rules of the contest very clearly stipulate that any "blackhat" methods are forbidden. Any site entering the contest even has to list full contact details on the site. The websites that might win the contest most likely will be high quality sites that have gained links legitimately by creative techniques that encourage other people to link to you, such as maybe competitions of their own, or providing excellent content worth linking to.
The change made will have a dramatic effect on search results unless Google decide to ignore NoFollow for this domain and there are other ways to control this. ]

* Note that per Jimbo's request to Brion, rel=nofollow is now set for links in all Misplaced Pages mainspace articles. Spamming Misplaced Pages will therefore be utterly futile (not that I expect that to stop them). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::"Utterly futile" whilst half a dozen prominent mirrors run our links without nofollow? I think not....--] ] 15:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:* Is Jimbo's request archived somewhere? If yes, could somebody please post a pointer to it? Thanks in advance (and sorry if I might have overlooked it). --] 12:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::* Found it: posted by Brion on Sat Jan 20 09:30:59 UTC 2007. --] 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:Also if he gave any reasons? and ] were both quite strong votes against this although there was a smaller vote since which was split.--] ] 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You can check this feature out for yourself by having your browser display the source code (typically a menu bar command such as "View source code", "Source", or "Page source"); here's an example from the ] article:
:*<nowiki>"<a href="http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/70/7/4230?view=long&amp;pmid=15240306" class="external text" title="http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/70/7/4230?view=long&amp;pmid=15240306" </nowiki>'''''rel="nofollow"'''''<nowiki>>Geomicrobiology of high-level nuclear waste-contaminated vadose sediments at the hanford site, Washington state</a>" </nowiki>

The MediaWiki software does this automatically when converting wiki-code to html to send to browsers.--] ] 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The announcement is on the mailing list, but can't see any comment from Jimbo at this time. Once word gets out this should reduce the sneaky linkspam, like we recently saw on stub templates, HOWEVER, linkspamming Misplaced Pages will still be attractive for two reasons: 1) direct sales - like at the bottom of the ] article the section called '''Cheap insurance quotes''', and 2) the nofollow tag is not used by all search engines, and most Misplaced Pages mirrors (of which there are many) will strip the tag anyway. It's probably a step forward but not a silver bullet. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:I think it's a step backwards... If every website out there starts to use "nofollow" then google will stop paying attention to it. This could backfire in the long run guys. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::Agree totally. Mistake which will bite us. I will try to write it up somewhere tonight.--] ] 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Done: ] anyone taking bets? ;) --] ] 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::Google has asked us in the past to nofollow user submitted links. None of the search engines take it as gospel (which is yet another reason why nofollow isn't a replacement for the SBL), they simply use it as another factor in their analysis. In the future we'll be able to do better: Someday we plan on having some systems for content approval (not-vandalized flag, stable versions, etc.. there are many proposals)... such systems will ultimately allow us to have the community collectively approve links which are good. Until then we should be good netizens and tag our user submitted links as such. --] 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I have seen Matt Cutts (he is notable again now) suggest there should be a way to have some untrusted links nofollow, but not all. One thing I think is overlooked is that followable links are one of the factors in determining duplicate content and the original source for information. By adding nofollow, it might be looked on that you are not citing your sources correctly in an ethical manner. Last time I checked, Yahoo still followed and indexed nofollow pages, MSN and Google do not ] 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

* Don't forget to watchlist obviouis targets like ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

*Finally! This was a good decision. --]&lt;sac&gt; ] .oOo. 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*Hmph. We'll see. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

=== For your entertainment ===
* http://www.seorefugee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4655
* http://www.wickedfire.com/industry-news/7373-wikipedia-external-links-now-nofollow.html

]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Looks like the SEO gang doesn't like time out in the corner. Pity. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::Quick glance of the links associated with posters in the threads Guy posted (not asserting non-notability), just interesting.

{{linksearch|*.cre8asiteforums.com|cre8asiteforums.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.7search.com|7search.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.pobox.com|pobox.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.elogodesign.com|elogodesign.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.endlesspoetry.com|endlesspoetry.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.tubgirl.com|tubgirl.com}}<br>
{{linksearch|*.redboxcodes.com|redboxcodes.com}}<br>--] 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:*And working backwards, it looks like one of the posters in one of the above forums is {{User|Thekohser}}, now known as {{User|MyWikiBiz}}. He's the one bragging about how Misplaced Pages is irrelevant now that he's found a NEW way to spam for his clients. Sounds like ] to me. --] | ] 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::*Sounds like he's found a new wiki directory that allows for ownership and protection of commercially-promoted articles, all while giving contributors the unlimited opportunity to earn Google AdSense and Amazon Associates revenues while they build out the directory's content. Would you say it's "spam" when a company lists itself in the Yellow Pages? That's the gist of your (weak) argument here. His company sounds like a much better financial deal than what Wikia offers its "volunteers". If that's sour grapes, ], I want me some. --] 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*And it's regugitated advertising buzzspeak like that which instantly trips my BS detector -- that, and things like trying to , and to ]'s user page. Back again under a new name, eh? Pimping your site on that forum above wasn't enough, you had to come here, too? --] | ] 04:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::*Now, now. Assume good faith. I do not have ANY ownership interest in that company. You folks could learn a lot from the Wikia.com model -- when people are annoying you, find them a new home that welcomes their annoying little traits, and send them there. --] 04:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::*Assume good faith '''in the absence of evidence to the contrary'''. So far, a metric buttload of evidence to the contrary, JossBuckle Swami/MyWikiBiz/TheKohser/whatever-you're-calling-yourself-this-month. --] | ] 04:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::*Metric buttload! That's a good one. Calton, don't you see? It's so easy to keep contributing to Misplaced Pages when there are so many hypocrites offering themselves up for correction. You, like so many others, haven't even READ what Jimmy Wales did to MyWikiBiz, have you? Would it be so difficult to learn the whole story? You know, the one where MWB created a company based on the tenets of the Reward Board, then acted in the bright light of full disclosure, formed a mutual agreement with Jimmy Wales, then the community literally changed the rules by creating a "conflict of interest" policy out of thin air, which Jimmy then got behind and dismissed MyWikiBiz, then defaced MWB's user page, thus running off their business, all while promoting a donation-supported environment that serves as a link-farm for his for-profit Wikia.com? Get a clue. (Don't make me unplug my modem and come up with another anagram user name again.) --] 05:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::*''It's so easy to keep contributing to Misplaced Pages when there are so many hypocrites offering themselves up for correction.'' A metaphor involving ebony-colored cookware is coming to mind, however elaborately you spin your history here. One also wonders why if your site is so damned wonderful and profitable and just so much better than Misplaced Pages, you still feel the need to come over to Misplaced Pages to pimp it. The door? Over there, and be careful not to let the doorknob hit you on the ass on the way out. --] | ] 07:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
*Something about not throwing stones when you live in glass houses comes to mind. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 19:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==
The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.

* It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

* Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.

*Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

*Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at ]. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.

For the Arbitration Committee, <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

===Discussion===
A question: is the 180-days period of grace for the consensus applicable in similar situations (provided previous steps to dissuade users have been tried)? I guess the 6 month grace does not include new debates about the same topic, right? -- ] 04:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:That would be something to ask for clarification about at ] probably. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 04:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::] establishes the general principle that admins should "close" extended discussions about policy (similar to how admins close deletion discussions), and allows admins to enforce the result with recalcitrant users after suitable warnings. However, the enforcement provision applies to "this matter." In other words, the arbitration committee doesn't want to permanently enshrine the current TV episode naming convention, but doesn't want to open the door to wikilawyering in a month that ]. (Something which is my experience is usually cited after a debate has closed by the losing side trying to reopen discussion.) My own opinion is that once a consensus is determined, there should be a period of time where everyone has to live with it to see how it works out before reopening a potentially divisive debate all over again, but the exact length of time will depend on the situation. ] 05:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::As you predicted: —] <small>(] • ])</small> 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I'd like to point out I only mentioned it as I did BEFORE the arbitration as well. I am not trying to reopen discussion on this topic, which is why I have kept and will continue to keep my objections private until the matter is raised again. ] 11:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Erm, without having to read through the whole case, which I will get to, what does this mean in a nutshell? ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 05:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::Nevermind, I understand. If I do a requested move from X to Xx, that is supported, violations of that move up to 180 days are to be enforced and all other such discussion responsibilities must be handled. RM as an example. ]<sup><small> (])</small></sup> 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::In this case, the committee recognizes that a consensus to disambiguate TV episode names ''only when needed'' exists but was not recognized by all involved. For the next 180 days, editors who move TV episode articles against consensus may be blocked if necessary (presuming admin discretion, warnings first, not biting new editors, etc.) Other moves were not at issue, this isn't a general ruling on page move policy. ] 05:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

::::Yes, however remember that decisions create precedents. From what I see and understand, it is allowing administrators and others (in example, an informal mediator who had been called upon an issue who may not be administrators) to close discussions looking for consensus, not only for moves but for any discussion (in example, "Which image we should use for this article?", "Should we shrink the plot even more?", "Should we add more external links?", etc). I was asking about the period grace because it would be pretty helpful in any case when the "closure" is applied (who hasn't been inside a discussion that ended, just to begin again on the following week?). While 180 days is explicit for this case, it would be useful for those closing debates to establish a period during which the consensus is accepted, so that the article can move forward (discussions looking for consensus usually impact negatively on the article, as editors focus on dicussing instead of improving it). -- ] 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::I don't think you can set a calendar on consensus. The period during which consensus is accepted is the period during which it is accepted, however long that is. (Wonderful circular logic.) If, after a discussion closes, one person wants to reopen it against the majority that is happy with the outcome, that's obviously a no-go, no matter how long it has been. If enough people have changed their minds that a consensus no longer exists, then the discussion needs to be reopened, no matter how long it has been. Consensus lasts however long it lasts, in other words. I read the ruling to give admins broad discretion. Anyone who can't handle it shouldn't be an admin, or at least leave these situations to others.
:::::I would also be cautious in applying the arbitration committee's ruling, which mentions policies and guidelines, to more minor issues such as the ones you suggested. ] 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I understand. The examples I gave are very simple ones, I was thinking in an extremely complex one. There is this concept that japanese articles should be in uppercase if they are written in a determined way, thus you may end up with many articles with titles like ]. Trying to move it to ] may make others move it back to ]. If you move it to the correct location, people would just change the name from "Colors" to "COLORS" inside the article. In any case this is an extremely complex issue. I was thinking that, in seven months, people would be free to move the articles again to the "(Buffy episode)", since the period would have ended, and one would have to search for consensus again. While it may not happen in this case, believe me, Japanese topics are bound to this kind of problems. -- ] 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::My understanding of the ruling is that people would be free to move articles to the "(Buffy episode)" naming pattern '''if and only if''' consensus at ] changed; and the "closing" part of the ruling is, as Thatcher131 indicates, meant to give the current consensus "time to settle". Of course consensus can change, but it can't be in a ''constant'' state of change — otherwise, it's not much of a consensus. Does that make sense? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 10:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
*"Consensus can change" does not mean "ignore consensus if you disagree with it", although certain people have been wikilawyering that way. If you believe that consensus has changed, the burden is on you to demonstrate that, generally through dialogue. Proof by assertion isn't. ] 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

==]==

] even repeatedly deletes relevant, valuable historical images from non-image-heavy articles, even from articles with only 2 images. For instance, see the history of ], ], ]. None of the images are identical, and they were all painted or photographed in different years. It can do no harm to leave these images on the articles, and even if these images should be removed, ] should have previous noticed me the uploader so that I could move the images to WikiCommons. The example ] provided ] is just an extreme case where it was indeed image-heavy, and I have agreed and removed several images myself. There is absolutely no user complaints on all the rest of the articles. Also, I'm not editing images against ], because I have resized all my images so that they do not exceed the maximum width it states (550px). Actually, most of them are within 300px wide and many of them are even smaller.

Look at these valuable historical images of extreme high quality and resolution that ] has been trying hard to destroy: (They have all belonged to different articles, and thus not space-occupying or redundant.)

*
*
*
*
*

Look at how many images and galleries ] has. Most of my articles do not even contain one-third or one-fourth as many as the images that article contains. ] 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* ], second on the left down the hall. Oh, wait - have you tried using the "width=''xx''px]] syntax in images? That may help here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* And much more preferable than explicitly sizing a thumbnail is to leave out the size. It will then be displayed at the size that the '''user has selected in their preferences''... After all, they know better than you about the size of their display! Ta/] 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:As I have stated above, I don't see any point in cleaning up the mess after ], someone else will have to do that. Just to give you an idea what we are dealing with, please refer to ].

:This is an editor with several sock puppets who has a long history of throwing about accusations of vandalism and who refuses to listen to the kind of advice you just gave him. If you leave him alone for a while his favorite pages will start looking or (scroll down the page). You can also have a look at his most recent edit history. This is not my problem anymore, I have removed most of his favorite pages from my watch list. Hope you will enjoy the show.--] 02:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::I have went through a number of the articles that Highshines contributes to and have fixed up the images to use thumbnails (rather than frames) and to remove explicit sizes where they are not required (and it's very rare that explicit sizes are required). I'll leave a note on the talk page. Thanks/] 14:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, if all the articles you're fixing, Niohe, look like that, then please, by all means, ''rewatchlist'' them and keep fixing them. Not sure if there are other more subtle cases that Highsiness is talking about; but if not, please please fix them. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::More is to come, I promise you. Highshines has already made an undiscussed and a completely uncalled for page move of ] twice. I don't know if you are familiar with Chinese history, but the person referred to in the article below is known as the "Fragrant Concubine" in English and nothing else. I can't undo this because I'm not an administrator.

::::*
::::*

::::--] 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::::By the way, someone with administrative power might want to take a look at this: ]. I have just posted a list of IP socks that Highshines uses.--] 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

== Bosnian War ==

Basically, ] is utterly opposed to any reference to Jihadists being involved in the Bosnian War. This would be OK, ''however'' - he has knowingly contravened numerous Misplaced Pages policies. ] (he didn't present any sources to show there weren't Jihadists and dismissed reputable ones such as the BBC and The Guardian (i.e. not Serbian propaganda websites), see ]), ] (he edited the article based on your his own theories in the the face of sources which contradicted his views - the BBC source was dismissed as "propaganda"), ] (inserting "Crusaders" to refer to Russians/Greeks to make the point that there were no Jihadists, again with no sources ) and ] & ] (calling me "ignorant" and an Islamophobe). You can see the whole discussion ]. All these policy violations were . His response? I'm a "funny guy." Basically it's like talking to a brick wall - sources, reasoned arguments etc all mean nothing to him, because He Knows Better and That's That. // ] 12:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:Hadžija, as long as your sources are notable and verifiable, I would argue that it is legit for them to stay in the article. Obviously making sure that these comments are properly attributed (i.e. "According to the BBC, at the time..." Regards, --]<sup>]</sup> 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::I have added a footnote to the article. After a quick look in Lexis-Nexis I found almost 2000 articles regarding this, including a report from the Bosnian state prosecution. So I guess that if the term is good enough for the current Bosnian judiciary, it should be OK for the article. If in doubt, I suggest you place a ]--]<sup>]</sup> 21:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Fixing a Copy and Paste move ==

Could someone please move ] to ]. Another user had done this as a C+P move, and I have placed a comment on their talk page, but having reverted both I am unable to conclude the fix so would be grateful if an admin could finish off for me. Thanks. ] 16:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
: Done. --] 18:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

== Warning IPs ==

Just pondering... I see many warnings go out to IP editors, and then it is expected of them to read those warnings too. But... how?

When not logged in, there's no userpage/'My Talk' link at the top, and there are no notifications of new messages popping up the screen. So, there seems absolutely no point in posting warnings or other messages to an IP talkpage. Am I missing something? --] <small>(])</small> 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

:When you are an IP and you recieve a message...the link just comes up as the "you have new messages". Same thing as logged in Users. ] 16:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

::You can also go to ]. Cheers! ''''']] ]''''' § 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

==Appealling==
I'm in a bit of a layout dispute at ]. After being reverted twice, I mananged to coax ] onto the talk page where I was addressing his concerns. I thought we were making progress but then ] came in a reverted it again , refused to go on to the talk page, and threatened to block me . I don't want to be blocked so I would like to appeal this. ] 20:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Well, we're not a board of appeals, Kitia isn't an admin and can't block you, and you shouldn't have ]. Apart from that, I can only recommend that you continue to try and settle this content issue on the article talk page. Try and stay ''polite at all times'' even if it's hard to. It pays off, believe me. ] 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

==Edits to ] ==

We requested page protection to end the reverts during our dispute resolution and mediation. Why are we reverting the protected version? This seems inappropiate. I believe the version initially found just before page protection should stay untill we can discuss this on the talk page. Reverts are disruptive. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:Because it is a ] issue, it is best to tread cautiously at least until the issue is settled. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::Which is what I did. ] 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::It just suprised me to see the change reverted, then reverted back on the protected page. I believe one version or the other should stay untill this is settled. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Um, guys, how is putting his birthday as July 17 "potentially libelous"? Worse, after another admin reverted Cbrown, he reverted back ''again''. Navou is right, the change on this page is totally inappropriate, an Cbrown should undo himself. ''Airing on the side of caution'' does not mean removing a ''birthdate'' as libelous, and seems to go against the spirit of ], using one's admin priveledges to circumvent this problem. Bad move bad move, IMHO. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I quote ]:<blockquote>Misplaced Pages includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.</blockquote>I have absolutely no involvement in this, and yes, maybe Cbrown1023 was wrong to essentially wheel war, but this is what Misplaced Pages official policy says, and in this case, with how BLP can have potential real-world issues, it's better to err on the side of caution. However, I'm not Cbrown, so I won't speculate about his full reasoning; I just thought that paragraph would be interesting and relevant. Cheers, ''']''' 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::: Per BLP, Cbrown's edits were absolutely the right move. ] (]) 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I was unaware of that provision of BLP, which greatly removes a lot of the offense. Still, I think the wheel warring was inappropriate. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 23:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Check out . It overrides normal restraints. ] 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*The only page protections that should not be edited, or reverted, are those placed under the provisions of ]. Any other protection is malleable under administrators' discretion, though of course they should show a good deal of sense and care when editing or reverting protected pages. Furthermore, edit warring and wheel warring are both counterproductive and harm the integrity of the Wiki, and should be avoided. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== PD-Soviet is deprecated ==

{{tl|PD-Soviet}} is only transcluded into ''one'' file (which was recently uploaded), and uploads are no longer accepted onto it. Commons has long since redirected the version there to the copyvio template; I think we should do something similar with the en version, a TfD is not appropriate in my opinion as we may restore this template, and the discussion on its talk page may be useful. Any thoughts?--]] (]) 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirected; that should do it ... ] 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Sounds good to me. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone fix the double redirect ? ] 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:It wasn't protected, you could've fixed it in less time than it took you to post here asking someone else to do it ... ] 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*I've also fixed {{]}}, which was another old redirect. Does anybody know if there are any others hiding out there? <tt style="color:#161;">''Gavia immer''<small> (]|])</small></tt> 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Is this appropriate for a user page? ==

{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: Grey;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: Black; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|{{{id-s|14}}}}}}pt; color: {{{id-fc|white}}};" | '''{{{3|]}}}'''
| style="font-size: {{{info-s|8}}}pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: {{{info-fc|black}}};" | This user believes that ''']''' are worse than ''']s'''.
|}</div>

I don't want to bring it up to said user and an admin sent me here for community advice. To see the full spectrum, check out my userpage. ] 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Check out . It probably covers most of what you have. ] 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::That is completely inappropriate for a userpage (or anywhere for that matter).--] ] 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:As the admin who sent Jasper here, my thoughts are the same as Tyrenius'. I also wanted to emphasize that the boxes on Jasper's page are not Jasper's boxes, but rather boxes he has copied from the as yet unnamed user's page simply for illustration (at least I believe that's what happened). · '''<font color="#709070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' · 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::I think having every one of those userboxes on a userpage is extremely bad judgement, this one particularly. ] 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
In , you can easily see the discussion with Policy Nerd, it's the 31st discussion on the page that contains 35 discussions. But in by the archive bot, there are now only 15 discussions on the page, not 35 even though the edit doesn't show the content being removed. So, where did those 20 discussions go? Has this deletion of content from noticeboard archives been a regular thing?
'''A different question:''' Bottom line is this. Wikipedians are given userspace to assist the project and to help them work with other users. Yes, we don't have too many rules - and Wikipedians have latitude, but if something isn't going to help the project or user relations then any good wikipedian should stay clear of it. This is obviously going to be inflammatory and at very least discussing it will be a distraction from important things. Thus, Jasper23, if you are here to serve this project, you will want to remove it, and anything similar, regardless of what the letter of policy might say. A good wikipedian will not want to take the chance of distracting us from real encyclopedic work. So the question is not 'is this allowed?', it is 'are you a good wikipedian'? --]<sup>g</sup> 01:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have a clue what happened here and why the removal of content would not be visible in this edit? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The unnamed user is {{User|AmeriCan}} (God knows why you're all being coy about it). I have removed that particular box from his page. The rest should probably be dumped in the bit bucket, too, but that was so obviously bad I nuked it immediately. --] | ] 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Again, just to clarify in case anyone missed this earlier, these are not Jasper's userboxes, they are copied from another user page and he is asking for discussion. I found the original source's userpage with about 2 minutes of digging through and cross-referencing the images used in the boxes. The userpage in question also has a rather soapbox-y rant against Bill Maher and claims him to be in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden. It's rather intriguing, actually. (Edit conflict: Calton has unveiled above.) —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 01:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Looks like he's Talk Page spamming other conservatives (hmm, more evidence about why political userboxes are a Bad Idea, as they enable this behavior) to rally around some ] issue, to fight off those nasty liberals. Lovely. --] | ] 01:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::I've nominated the page for deletion. Somehow I doubt that this user created it in good faith.--] ] 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry everyone. I should have been more clear about where those boxes came from. I guess the "I stole these" on my page wasn't that clear. Reading back through my post I realize I should have stated the issue more clearly and identified the userbox owner. Well, thanks for quick treatment. ] 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Looks like a violation of ] is going on with this user. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Concur with the ] and image deletion. The goal at Misplaced Pages is to describe political controversies rather than take part in them. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Denying vandals recognition ==

I'm think it might help to apply ] to ]. At this point he's just trying to get as much attention as possible and reveling in every little bit he gets. If we stop making a big deal out of anything Cplot-related, but just ], hopefully the problem will go away. I can't really think of any reason these Cplot socks need to be categorized; they're all blocked indef, so there's no need to continue watching any of them. --] 01:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:This is really a question for the checkusers, whether any of the listings that are being made are helpful to them. ] 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::As a general rule, no, they're not useful. Ask me in private for the reason why. --] 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::While I generally agree with you Cyde, I think descisions about how information on sockpuppets is disseminated and organised should really be up to the checkusers. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Possible addition to ] ==

] posted a message on the Help Desk yesterday commenting that ] should be added to the ]. I'm not sure whether or not it exactly meets the qualifications for that list, although it appears like it might. I posted a message ] regarding the image, however my message has not yet been addressed. If the image is added to the list, it should be added with an exception for the ] article. ]—<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Help please, concerning an AfD ==

Hello. The ] project has a problem. ] nominated ] under ] for deletion, and a consensus feels that (and this is a unanimous consensus by the way) that these articles should stay, and some (including myself) feel that the ] nominated those articles on bad faith. It's been a few days now, and so I ask, can one of you guys please close the AfD on ] and if you can, do something about the ], concerning his possible bad faith nomination. Thank you for your time. --]]] 02:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:: After reviewing the debate, it appears there will be no consensus for deletion, and a consensus for keep has developed. Not an admin, but I have closed this AFD per the debate ] and me closing it is ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Username? ==

I came across the username {{user5|Reziladnav}} (''Vandalizer'' written backwards) today. Is this ok per ], or should this user request a username change? ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Actually, looking at the user's seemingly productive contributions so far, it seems that the user might be using his/her user name to demonstrate that he or she is, in fact, the ''opposite'' of a vandalizer. Reading the user page, I see that the user has been frustrated when editing in the past from public computers that had been blocked because of other people's vandalism. So, frankly, I see this choice of a user name as a way to demonstrate that he or she is actually interested in contributing constructively. · '''<font color="#709070">]</font>''' ''<font color="#007BA7" size="1">]</font>'' · 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Even without jersyko's bit of digging, I wouldn't think this account is a violation of ]. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Not a bad concern, but I don't think that it's a problem (especially given jersyko's psycho-analysis of the editor, which I think is terribly clever). ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Good analysis on Jerseyko's part. I'm satisfied. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Anyone have some free time? ==

Because I've found something you can ocupy it with. I was browsing through the toolserver, when I found , which lists talk pages with no article (aka G8). It was compiled by Rob Church, and I have no idea how long ago, but some of the pages are still around, and can be safely speedy deleted. Some of them are alos incorrectly archived talk pages, or redirects to those talk pages (which can mostly be deleted as R3's. There's no conceivable good reason for a talk page archive redirect). So, if you've got nothing better to do, this is a good place to come. -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Delete all pages. -- ] 04:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Er, that's the point.—] (]) 04:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::I feel like someone else ran this more recently, but I can't remember where. It's more useful on-wiki, so that one can see which links are red and which blue. If ''you'' have some free time, Royalguard11, you could copy it over. . . ] 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::: Be careful to ''not'' delete any pages with information as on how to create a new article, one of the exceptions to CSD G8. Also, some pages may be tagged with {{tl|Needed-Class}}, so take care of not nuking those too. ]<sup>(])</sup> 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::*Since when is that an exception, especially as ] doesn't actually say so? ] 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, speaking of which, I've got a quick question about talk pages. I've been tagging some image talk pages (deleted through replaceable fair use), but is this right? FUC #1 discussion don't take place elsewhere. ] 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:No. Don't delete talk pages with non-redundant discussion about the deletion of the page on it. We want to keep that visible. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::Oh great. Can an admin view my deleted edits to the Image: space? I tagged at least three image talk pages. One was an image about an obese child, and two others were baout replaceable fair use images. ] 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I put up a crudely Wikified copy of the first part of the list (A-J) here: (]), if anyone wants to take a stab at this. --] | ] 05:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Well, a quick skim shows that almost all the orphaned talk pages have already been deleted, and from the dates on the few that remain, this list was probably compiled in May of 2006. Just so you know. --] | ] 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::UPDATE: Spoke too soon. Looks like the "K"s onward are chockful of orphaned talk pages. I've updated my list, and took a stab at tagging the "K"s. --] | ] 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to delete as many as I can. I've done up to "M". -]<small>(]·]·])</small> 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

==]==
Nice backlog, folks. I'm clocking off. ] 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Help! I'm being crushed by the articles! ] (]) 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Is the number stuck at <s>179</s>178 for anyone else? ] (]) 14:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Ownership Issues, something not quite right..... ==

I came across ] in the thread above, and thought something was a little odd....
He's self-listed as the 'head' of the ] - which seems to have some odd instructions on it (ie. don't edit this bit, wait until the co-ordinator or chairperson has done something or other...) - he also self-identifies as holding the responsibility of a Clerk office for CheckUser, and I found it a little odd that he also seems to have the same text about page vandalism as Jimbo.

Nothing massively untoward, but it seems to me that he's projecting false authority in about the nicest way i've ever seen it done...... perhaps this isn't at all un-wiki-ish and its all in my head, what do you think? ] 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:That bit about being the head of the WNP racked up a few oppose votes in his recent RFA. ] 07:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish people would actually read the text of things before they complained about it. Really, it would make for a lot less hurt feelings and cooler heads. The text is taken from Jimbo's page (it's actualy templated somewheres, but I took the template code and changed it to fit my userpage). Jimbo's perfectly okay with this. Perhaps some attribution is in order though - I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Secondly, as the "head" (the title that was given was "chairperson", and it's actually mostly in jest per some early discussion on the matter when the project was still in the proposal stage) I have asserted numerous times on the talk page of the WNP that the WNP has no special weight in the matter, nor do I, myself. I'm just another guy. Really, really. My own role is mostly trying to keep the whole thing together and coordinated, I leave the "in the trenches" editing to subject experts and only reply to WNP requests for areas in my own area of expertise.

Just to be completely clear: '''The Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project has no special weight or authority.''' Consensus rules wikipedia, not a small group with similar interests - maintaining NPOV. Anyone who asserts the WNP has special authority is wrong.

It is my hope that addresses everything. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:In either case, why is this something for ]? ]<sup>(])</sup> 07:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::They're legitimate concerns, although I agree this isn't the best venue. If it was refactored onto my talk page I'd be happy to continue the discussion there, so long as Purples is informed of the move. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 08:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:::That's the first thing that I thought. If I had been in your place, looking at the Noticeboard and seeing a discussion about me springing up from nowhere, I would be quite... shocked. ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::::(Editing with Lynx sucks sometimes. Can someone move the further comments above Titoxd's comments so this discussion makes more sense? Thanks.) I was, very much so. But keeping a cool head works wonders sometimes :) Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 08:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Some further points I missed when first reading the comment:
:The bits about don't edit "x" section are hold outs from a partially failed restructuring of the project. I should probably remove them. I will make that a priorty. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
:The identification as a clerk is for identification purposes only, and for the same reason one identifies as an administrator, sysop, checkuser, steward, et cetera. I have knowledge of the processes of ] being a RFCU clerk, so I identify as such so that people know that I am someone they can approach with concerns regarding RFCU cases.
:As a RFCU clerk, I have absolutely no say in RFCU matters. That is the purview of the presiding checkuser. My only function is to organise requests, format them as appropriate, fulfill occasional requests for additional informations given by the checkusers, and archive cases when they are completed. It is a conflict of interest to voice opinions on listed or potential cases, and I have no authority to encourage certain descisions, challenge them, or overturn them. In short my authority on RFCU is nil. I just have knoweldge of that process that users may find useful, and therefore welcome approaches from users for help listing their cases.
:Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*I've edited the project page to remove its "chairperson". Wikiprojects shouldn't have hierarchies. ] 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
**What about (probably) the most successful one? I believe they are having elections right now. I think a properly handled hierarchy ''can'' work, but it has to be a very flat, decentralised one. I guess most times things can be handled by people volunteering for stuff and working together. Sometimes, though, leadership can keep things moving forwards, but I agree that formalising such things is often bad. There are also problems when too many people volunteer for a particular position. Usually the conclusion is that elections are needed to decide who gets the position, but actually, the conclusion should usually be that the position is popular because too much power has been centred in one position. Instead of holding elections, the position should be split up among the volunteers following discussion. ] 16:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
***I'd like to remind everyone that the WNP discussion page is ]. This is not the appropriate venue. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Fair use review ==

What do we consider to be the status of ]? Many images have been sitting there for a long time. What determines when or whether the image is removed from the category? Would it make sense simply to add all of these, en masse, to ], and have a centralized discussion? ] 07:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Can't revert archived talk page ==

I can't seem to revert my archived talk page: {{la|User talk:Tinlinkin/Archive 1}}, which someone redirected to ], and I don't see any other edits than mine. Quite funny, but I want my talk archive back. ] 07:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:According to the history, YOU redirected it to Superman... ]] 07:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:: was when I moved contents of my talk page to the archive. I even had to in a to-do list to point to the archive. And the last time I checked (I admit in December), the archive was still there. ] 07:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Well I have deleted the page, you can archive to it as you see fit. (BTW there we no deleted edit previously - possibly a database error) ]] 08:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Oh, wonderful. Leave me to do the hard work. (sigh and sarcasm) But why would the database error (or other cause) resolve that way? And I'm a little disturbed that something like this can happen at all, since I didn't touch the page since it was created, and to my knowledge, nobody else either. (I know well enough not to create a talk page that redirects to an article, especially one I don't keep track of.) I will recreate the page. ] 08:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You sure that you didn't leave yourself logged in on a computer that someone else had access to? That looks like the kind of thing someone would do as a joke. ] 14:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==
The kind of ]n ruler that makes one stop wondering how this great country could have been dominated by foreigners for so long. Inept he is, to say the least. Accusing me of having continued warring on ] after having been reported for 3RR, which is not true (is warring ?) makes a sick joke of this man. ] really is the kind of admin Misplaced Pages needs to ruin its credibility. ] 10:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
: If you kept switching back and forth between the two, then yes, that is edit warring. Also, it makes yourself look worse if you focus ''that'' much on his ethnicity. ]] 11:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Generally, Nick is a good user. Everyone makes slip ups. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::What slip-ups? Check the history of the page. He has been revert-warring since a few days. Block came in warranted. ], and don't you see the ]? User has been trolling and has left remarks in racial undertones on my talk page, and his own. <tt>>:)</tt> &mdash; ] 12:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I wasn't making a statement or judgment on this particular case. I was saying that generally, everyone makes mistakes and users need to be more tolerant of others. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I've warned ] about the lack of civility and specifically that it is unhelpful to make racist statements about other editors. --] 13:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Actually that particular list has been the focal point of a long-running user dispute. When I first encountered it I offered some constructive advice, yet I doubted the inclusion standards could ever be defined well enough to meet encyclopedic standards. I've voiced that at the deletion discussion. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
* As Durova notes above, I have taken the ] to AfD, for reasons stated in the nomination. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*Any more racist statements from RCS will result in a block from myself. The comments referred to by Guinnog and NHN verge on reprehensible -- ] 05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== WikiPrograms that are still not useful ==

Based upon last week's thread (]), ] is working on a reform and a change of focus, to help people with editor skills rather than gaming the system at RFA. However, ] is not. For one part it is redundant with ER, for another it's still about telling people what RFA "wants to hear". I believe it would be best if AC was deprecated (no, I do not mean "deleted") so that novice users desiring guidance have one central productive place to look at. ] 12:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
* I remain of the view that admin coaching is a fundamentally bad idea, in a way that admin mentorship is not. I mean, what sane person would ''want'' this shit? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 12:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
** Um, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], just to name a few... they're all shit bananas, apparently. ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Good point, Radiant. And Guy, that reasoning would mean all of us are nuts. Then again, maybe we are... ;) <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:* 100% of a sample of Misplaced Pages admins in my house was found to be barking mad. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::* HAY! I only came in for a pint! ] 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

==New Sock Puppet Policy Proposed==
To deal with the fact that none of us are answering the reports at the failed ], I have proposed a new way of dealing with users approaching ] about potential abuse of sock puppets. Please see:
*]
*]
] 14:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Review of Indef Ban ]==

I am requesting review of the indef ban of ]. I have been in contact with this user and he is willing to not edit the ID article, submit to mentoring, and probation. I believe he is quite sincere ]]]. 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:From someone who endorsed the community ban at ANI. For starters, it should be '''all''' articles even faintly associated with ID. Secondly, mentoring has had mixed results, as on occasion I have seen for myself. Thirdly, the problem is not merely one of bias. This fellow used an extremely unpleasant editing style: blocks for 3RR,WP:POINT violations, and on occasion some extremely unpleasant personal attacks. This sort of thing is likely to follow an editor around whatever they edit. Given all this, I feel that the encyclopedia and the community will not benefit from letting Raspor back in, but I suppose I could be persuaded. ] <sup> ]</sup> 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::He probably would agree to that. ]]]. 06:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

==Gaming the system==
i am watching an interesting case unfold with respect to the definition of a reliable source.
#An editor wishes to add some content they consider notable. But there are no reliable sources.
#After the fact, a blog is opened by a credible journalist with content that could be used as a source.
#Editor claims to know the journalist.
#Editor claims it is a reliable source since wikipedia accepts quotes written in blogs by credible journalists.

I would discount this blog as a reliable source since it seems just too convenient that the blog appeared with the required information during the dispute on wikipedia. How should one deal with such a case? ] ] 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Is this the journalist's personal blog or a publishing sponsored blog... i.e. Journalist X has a regular blog that he writes for and is hosted on Time.com? If this is a personal blog I don't think it matters if the journalist is credible or not... There is nothing in ] that suggests this is in any way an acceptable source. In fact it says "'''When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise''', or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these ''may'' be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." If this has never been previously published I would say this is not a reliable source. Whether or not the editor knows the journalist is besides the point. If this is an "official" blog, I'd say it ''might'' pass muster, but again I don't think writing an article on one journalist's blog posting is the right way to go. I'd request additional sources. Of course it is hard to say in this specific situation without actually seeing the article, source, and journalist in question with diffs.--] 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::I could give you the specifics but i didn't want to drag people into the argument. The blog is not an official blog, in fact, it is not even the journalists primary blog. I think you make a good point re: the third party publication. it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point. I think requesting additional sources is the best way to go. Thus the arguments about RS and the legitimacy of the blog can be dropped. thanks for your input. ] ] 17:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::: ''"it is possible that the blog is a fake too, although that would be stretching AGF at this point."'' There's your answer right there. AGF is irrelevant. We cannot absolutely verify that the named journalist is the author: it is not a reliable source. If it's on some site like blogspot, they have no way to verify authorship, and neither do we. Period. End of discussion. ] 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

*It may pass WP:RS, but it might have WP:OR problems, as well as problems with WP:V's call to use reliable, third party sources. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::'''Isotope23''', the blog was created and the information was posted a few hours befor it was cited. No, the journalist dosn't have a blog on a his paper's website. ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Nevermind... I found what ] was talking about on my own while dealing with another issue... man what a mess that whole thing is... Regardless, that is a blogspot post, In my opinion, there is no way, even if this is a notable journalist and her identity can be proven, that this could be considered a reliable source for the grafitti info unless there are other existing sources to back this up. ] is right, this should be non-negotiable even if there is some consensus to keep it in the article. It simply is not in anyway a reliable source under the current ] guidelines; and the talk of changing ] that seems to have sprung out of the RfC related to this situation is ridiculous.--] 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== User warnings harmonisation ==

Just a note to say that ] is ready to "go live" with their ]. Comments are appreciated (here or there). Thanks, <strong>]<font color="red">]</font></strong> 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:Oh, great, I'm going to have to retrain my fingers when warning vandals... A quick glance-through of the warnings looks pretty good to me - might be easier to find the ones I'm looking for in this package. ] <small>]</small> 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Everything looks great (except for a minor issue I made note of on the talk page). The only thing I dislike is the extra 3 characters at the beginning of each warning. "uw-" as a prefix for all the templates? Is there anyway to eliminate that? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 19:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The idea was to prevent conflicting with the old system right away, and to harmonize things, a bit like the db templates do. And it helps not conflicting with, for example, the {{tl|pov}} template. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::grumble grumble -- ] <small>(]/]/])</small> 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::Looks great, I will switch over when it ''goes live''. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And they're now live. JS I've moded the template with respect to your point on the blocks. Regards ] <sup>(] . ])</sup> 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:I have a problem with the {{]}}, {{]}}, and {{]}} tags in that they all indicate that a block is imminent and are intended to be followed up with a {{]}} template... but none of those things are ]. Giving people who just disagree about style an excuse to 'tag' each other with threats of blocks for 'vandalism' is a bad idea... ditto turning every content dispute into a war of 'uncensored' and 'unsourced' tags. All three of these things are supposed to be directed to dispute resolution... not falsely labeled as vandalism. --] 11:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Agreed. There's far too much throwing of templates on user talk pages going on at Misplaced Pages. And people are also too hasty to use the word "vandalism". Going against consensus is not vandalism. It's edit warring, and it's a Bad Thing, but it's not vandalism. Removing or adding POV tags is not vandalism, though there are times when it could be justifiable to roll them back or to revert without counting towards 3RR. (For example, if a user or an IP went to '''''every''''' article about every religion, and added {{tl|POV}} on the grounds that all religions are POV and that articles about them can't be neutral, I wouldn't hesitate to use rollback.) But generally, content-dispute pettty squabbles should not involve hurling the word "vandalism" around. By the way, you say "none of these things are ]." I'd say they're "not ''necessarily'' vandalism". Under certain circumstances, they might be. For example, the "not censored" one. If you edit war at ] to remove an image, against consensus, because you feel it shouldn't be there, then regardless of what others say, it's not vandalism, though you can still be justifiably blocked for edit warring. But if some anon or newly-registered user blanks the whole article on ], with an edit summary saying that it's indecent to mention such things, I think that troll can certainly be treated as a vandal. But a standard vandalism warning template would be appropriate. There's no reason for the {{tl|uw-vandalism4}} one. If it's a new user, put a {{tl|3RR}} on his talk page. If he's not reverting fast enough to warrant a 3RR block, then the established Wikipedians should have time to write a short ''personal'' message, referring him (with a link) to the appropriate section of the page on the policy that he's inadvertently breaking. I get increasingly concerned at the proliferation of templates used as black marks to be publicly displayed on the page of someone who has been naughty, rather than to make someone aware of a policy in order to help him. ]] 11:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Well said!--]<sup>g</sup> 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

==Erm...==

Not like this really ''belongs here'', but I'm just wondering: did I really misuse "Wikify" (The context being that I thought the template should be moved, to "Wikify" article) and did my edit merit a revert and a warning on my talk page ? --] ] 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Protection expiry ==

] to whoever decided to come up with the expiry time for protection. However, is there some sort of guideline on how long protections should last? Or is it just Your Best Judgment® for now? -- ''']''' 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
*This is a fairly new MW feature I believe, and no policy currently exists regarding it, though some discussion on what protection lengths would be appropriate would probably be a Good Thing<sup>TM</sup>. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
** Blame ]. <tt>;)</tt> ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That is so cool! ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Wow... Why didn't we think of this 6 months ago? :) ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 23:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Heh. You know, more developers = more spiffy features for us... so, all users who have a decent knowledge of PHP should help out! <tt>:)</tt> ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
* Just noticed it. Also "protect pages transcluded on this". w00t! <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that there's no note of the expiry of the protection in the page history, but still, that and cascading protection are awesome! --] ] 23:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:I was wondering if anyone would ever thing of this... ] 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
: You mean an automated "protection has expired" entry in the page's history? That ''does'' seem like a bug, because isn't recorded in the edit summary of the protection null edit. ]<sup>(])</sup> 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::Also, you can repeatedly unprotect pages (even when not protected) and leave null edits in the page history. Just FYI. --] ] 02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::The protection log DOES record the expiration date, if we can get that in the auto edit summary it would be useful. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:To help us all along with this great new feature I've updated/created:
* Interface: ] (new super-brief instuctions)
* Template for tagging: ] ({{t1|tprotected}}) (includes end-user link to the expiration date)
*: Short form redirect for template: ] ({{t1|tprot}})
* Category for new tag'd items ]
** — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Important note, if a page has existing protection (e.g. Edit=Auto,Move=Sysop) and you change the protection to anything (e.g. Edit=Sysop, Move=Sysop) AND use an expiration, '''ALL''' protections will be removed upon expiration. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

:Shouldn't almost all protections be temporary? I thought that was the point: to eliminate the interminable backlog at ] by having expiration times for protections. -- ''']''' 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh what do we need a guildline for. The protecting admin should have an aprox idea as to how long the protection should last for.] 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. We can figure it out on a case-by-case basis, and over time, admins can look at the lengths others are using and come to some sort of a consensus. --] 15:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

::We can create a policy when a need demonstrates itself. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can someone take a look at the article history here? Some editor (and an anon who's probably the same person) keeps inserting a picture of Jabba the Hutt and Princess Leia in chains as relevant to the history of slavery. ] 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:To judge the sincerity of the edits, the same editor(s), {{User|SolRosenBerg}} and {{user|13.8.125.11}}, have also been repeatedly re-inserting ]'s picture into ]. -- ] 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Lol, Jabba, that is funny. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== {{User|AmeriCan}} ==

Despite being warned for ] such as , this user has continued in it. I recommend at least a temporary block. (See also the "Is this userbox appropriate" section above for details on his attack userpage which has since been deleted.)--] ] 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

:Unless I am missing something this user has not canvased since the warning. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah, I somehow made the exact same mistake as Azer last night when I checked his contribs. But nah, he hasn't done anything other than edit your talk page once complaining about free speech since he was warned and his userpage was deleted. —] <font color="#C46100" size="1">]</font> 16:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to switch my time zone to GMT in preferences so that the times in the sigs and the times in the logs match, I am always getting confused. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

== {{vandal|Reboty}} ==


: (Non-admin comment) the issue might be to do with the error message in this section:
Could an admin please look at this user's edits (). I think they are probably vandalism, but I haven't gone over them very thoroughly.--] ] 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
::::: <blockquote>User:49.206.131.126 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)</blockquote>
::::: <blockquote>03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168561 by Adakiko (talk) The tile "Father of the nation" is sometimes used for Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in India but Part III, Article 18 of the Indian Constitution prohibits conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State.Cite error: A (see the help page). Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>
::::: <blockquote>Blocked – for a period of 1 month This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>
::::: <blockquote>References</blockquote>
::::: <blockquote>User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)</blockquote>
: ] (]) 05:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::So, you're saying that the content is still there, it's just been hidden for years because of the absence of a closing tag by the archiving bot? I wonder if this has happened on other archive pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's still not clear to me how to fix this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Someone has fixed it (I wasn't willing to try it myself as it was well above my pay grade...) the only way I can think of for finding other cases of this would be searching other pages for the same error message but for all I know this could throw up thousands of false positives. ] (]) 06:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Same problem at ] , 25 sections but only a few are showing up. - ] (]) 07:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Fixed now (thanks Daveosaurus). - ] (]) 07:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: You fixed the rest while I was looking for the other missing ref tag... there were at least two missing this time.
:::: For future reference (until someone comes up with an official techie explanation)... what was missing was a <code><nowiki></ref></nowiki></code> tag which meant massive chunks of content didn't show up. All that was needed for the fixes was to find out where the missing tag belonged and add it. ] (]) 07:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:*Well, thanks to whomever fixed this problem on this one archive page. It would be great if we could get a bot to scan for missing ref tags on archive pages. I know as an admin, I search admin noticeboards archives all of the time for previous reports and if even 10% of them are hidden because the archiving bot is cutting off tags when it reposts content, that could impact the work that we do. I know that this is a longterm issue to fix but we don't know how extensive it is. Maybe I'll put in a request on the Bot Noticeboard. But I appreciate editors who had some creative solutions here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


==Edit war with User:Mellk vs User:Rnd90==
:They look fine to me; he's replacing red links to non-existent ranks with live links to existent ones. The trouble is he never uses edit summaries &mdash; but that seems almost ''de rigeur'' these days... --] (]) 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|Matter handled. ] (]) 14:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
User Mellk has been repeatedly removing well-sourced information from the ] article. The removed content includes cited sources indicating possible violations of international laws by Mikhail Prokhorov. It appears that User Mellk may be attempting to conceal this information by removing it from the article.


Proposed Action:
== Spamming of Category:Board games ==
I respectfully request that an uninvolved editor or administrator review this matter. Please assess the reliability of the cited sources and help ensure that properly sourced content remains in compliance with Misplaced Pages’s policies. If the user’s actions are found to be disruptive or noncompliant with policy, I ask for administrative intervention to prevent further edit warring. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:{{user|Rnd90}} was edit warring attempting to restore edit they made. I originally removed this writing in the edit summary that it does not belong in the first sentence. We also have IPs appearing to restore the edit as well. This looks like a pretty clear ]. ] (]) 13:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{lc|Board games}} has been flooded by spam over the past months. If there are no objections, I will delete all the spam edits from the article and restore only the clean edits. The reason for this is the following: when the edits are in the page history, they can still be viewed by readers. Once they are deleted from the article, they will no longer be visible for normal readers, which makes spamming the category a lot less attractive for the spammers. Any thoughts? ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Dubai chocolate ==
== A pair of protected edit requests ==
{{atop
| result = I don't think the IPs are related to @]. This is otherwise a content dispute. Please discuss this on article talk and seek ] as needed. ] (]/]) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


So I created the article ] this week, and it got some attention I'm unsure how to deal with. I'm not even really concerned about the content itself, but more with how the content is edited.
There's now a pair of {{]}} requests, at ] and ], respectively. The first of the two has been sitting in place for some time. Unfortunately, I am not entirely confident in editing these two MediaWiki pages that are quite central, at least not on my own -- anybody care to comment or have some input? ] 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


There is an IP who made some changes while I was about to expand the article, so I saved my edit ignoring the edit by the IP because I also disagreed with the IP's edits. So sometime later an IP from the same range made a very similar edit, this time I explained it in detail why I don't think these edits are appropriate ] and even before I could save my edit on the talk page, ] also made such a similar edit. I saw that Dan Palraz even moved ] which was fortunately soon reverted as undiscussed move by ].
== ] ==


I don't want an edit war, so I will not edit this page now (and it's getting late, UTC+1). I'm always happy when others help improving articles, but not in the way it's happening currently. So I kindly ask Dan Palraz to revert their edits and discuss such edits on the talk page first and I'm seeking help from an administrator so this doesn't escalate to a real conflict. Thanks for reading this. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{vandal|JossBuckle Swami}} is the latest ban-evading incarnation of Gregory Kohs ({{vandal|MyWikiBiz}} / {{vandal|Thekohser}} / {{vandal|207.8.215.81}}). Having descended yet again into trolling and pushing his agenda with relation to the blocking of his MyWikiBiz account, I have blocked him. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}
*Appears like a sound desicision to me. I knew something didn't smell right, and it wasn't the fast food I had for dinner. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] &bull; ] )</span> 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:*Um, he did fully admit to it above. Anyway, what's wrong with this guy being around? Just curious. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 10:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::What is wrong is a few things. First, he was blocked by Jimbo and has not been unblocked, so any new account is a ban-evading sockpuppet, block on sight and delete any articles as ]. Second, he honestly thinks Misplaced Pages is in business to attract companies to create articles. He thinks that we are failing in a findamental aim because we erect barriers to companies creating PR articles on themselves. In other words, he simple ''does not get it'', despite having had the conept of Misplaced Pages explained ot him multiple times. Third, he keeps lapsing into vanity and spamming of his own websites. Fourth, he keeps trolling. Fifth, he is selling Misplaced Pages articles. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Huh. I'd figured out JossBuckle Swami was my MyWikiBiz (easy enough to follow the trail), but I hadn't realized he'd been banned. Oy, I could have saved the trouble of arguing with him. --] | ] 13:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::I think we can consider MyWikiBiz to be community-banned, beyond Jimbo's personal block. ] 15:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:We can assume two things: as long as his site is up he will be banned, and he will continue creating sockpuppets. -- ] 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


== Potential paid article writing (or just very bad form) by @] ==
== ] ==


{{atop
I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after this spammer, to say the least. He has quite a ] (all trace back to New York city) with something like over 200 edits between them, all of which took ''forever'' to clean up. The problem is, the spamming, which has gone for for over 3 months, continues to this day. The user has been warned and blocked endlessly, and continues to ignore the warnings. It involves the site *.ibtimes.com. I would appreciate it if anyone could help remove any last mentions of it from the legit articles (e.g., the 9 mentions we had out of 215 that weren't spam): so we can see the site blacklisted (I'm convinced that any benefit from using it is outweighed by the problem of spam from these guys). Either that, or someone could write a letter to the ISP or the company. I would do it, but I'm short on time and I'm not sure when I'll be back on here. Thx. ]<sup>]|]</sup> 10:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
| result = Nothing left to do here. ] (]) 00:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


I have no evidence for paid article writing, but otherwise this is very bad form. A quick look at @]'s edit history is they almost always start with a sandbox article before moving to draft and then moving into mainspace, completely bypassing the ] process. And they seem to do so for only high profile ]s like with ], ], ], and ]. I took a look at Ivan Yuen's page and it read like a resume, both in the "glowing positive review" sense and in the "meaningless vague garbage" sense. I trimmed almost everything from it before changing my !vote to Delete on the AfD. A brief skim of ] notes the same problem, and the references listed almost exclusively describe ], who is her considerably more famous husband. ] (]) 22:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== Can someone look into this? ==


:Nevermind. Checkuser got to them first. You can archive this now ] (]) 22:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
A blocked user, {{user|Knowpedia}}, requested my assistance , but I don't have any time at the moment to look into this. The user had previously been a responsible editor, but I"m unaware of recent circumstances. ] ≠ ] 11:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:Not too sure, you may wish to ignore this request. ] 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why was this described in the block log as a "vandalism-only account"? That seems inaccurate. I've left a note at the blocking admin's talk page. ] 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


== PayPal Honey edit warring ==
:PRODding other people's User pages and wiping out an existing User page with a Welcome template look like vandalism, to me. ]|] 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Page protected. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::Interesting situation because while those PROD, etc were definitely vandalism, it appears the rest of Knowpedia's edits were reasonably good faith. I think at this point an indef is probably a bit harsh though there may be circumstances here that I'm not aware of.--] 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Anybody willing to check in on ]? A lot of edit warring over unsourced content is happening right now due to some allegations by a YouTuber. I requested protection at ] but it doesn't look like anyone is answering any requests right now. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


:Someone on PayPal Honey's talk page said that "all sources are user-generated", referring to how user-generated sources like YouTube aren't always reliable. While I'm not necessarily saying Megalag is wrong, I still think we should let more sources come out about this aside from social media and forums. - ] (]) 05:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Block review Breathe Reprise ==
:I’ve just restored to the pre-edit war version. It doesn’t look like much constructive edits were lost, and once sources start publishing articles in this, we can readd it. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:It appears that at least one of the disruptive editors understands why this is a problem. A RPP sounds appropriate if you can get some action over there with a semi-protect at least. ]&thinsp;] 06:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Looks like in the last few minutes it was fully projected for 2 days. ]&thinsp;] 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:shouldn't this be reported at ] with prereq diffs? ] (]) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was considering sending the report to ANEW, but the Twinkle menu said I had to resolve the issue in a talk discussion first before I do so, so that's what I did. Looks like it worked though, don't you agree? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:also looks like user who was editwarring is a newbie who didn't know policy. we really shouldn't ] them, and newbie seems to show remorse and understanding . ] (]) 06:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor ==
*{{userlinks|Breathe Reprise}} blocked for a week for stalking {{user|Brookie}} - possibly related to {{userlinks|Captaindansplashback}} part of an ongoing stream of attacks on Brookie. Other disruption includes ]. I was thinking more in direction indefinete ban, but I let someone else decide that.
{{atop
| status = Forum shopping


| result = Duplicate of ]. Please discuss there. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*In the process I came across {{userlinks|"moo" she said}} which I indef'd as an account created for the purpose of disruption. ] 12:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
}}


Dear Wikipedians,
== Another Linda Christas content pusher ==


I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, but the contributor seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
Can we get a sock check on ] who's currently at large on ]. He's extremely determined that a provably bogus quote be kept in the article even though it doesn't appear in the transcript of the interview in question. Thanks! - ] 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
== Can someone close this AfD please ==


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
] has been a circus since it started, I think it is time to close, but I participated in it so cannot close it myself. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:<nowiki>*shudder*</nowiki> A webcomic AfD... has anyone else noticed AfDs getting more and more insanely argumentative lately? ] <small>]</small> 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::It is because the webcomic posted the AfD on it's forum and told everyone to come vote. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:::It's not just that one. I've seen a lot of others go crazy when they should be really easily dealt with. (] that I mentioned on here previously - SPAs all over the place, guidelines and policies be damned, and so on.) Is it a full moon or something? ] <small>]</small> 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Q: ''Comment, what evidence do we have that this webcomic is gaining in popularity?''
::::A: ''Common sense alone should garner the growing popularity given it's increase feature in the Joystiq polls''
::::Priceless! -- ] 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Closed, with a rationale that probably took longer to write than it deserved. I tried to be kind. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:Nicely done. ] <small>]</small> 18:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Thankyou! ]] 15:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
==] and ]==
Should we allow advocacy WikiProjects? This doesn't seem to be the reason we are here. ]|] 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :First of all, you need to inform Kriji Sehamati. I have done so. This report, as well as the AfD's linked on your talk page all appear to be generated by LLMs. This appears to be a dispute about AfDs.] (]) 15:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:Ummm, well, it is directly related to the ongoing running of wikipedia. But it's not realy a project, it's a narrowly focused discussion. Perhapse merging them and moveing it to WP:CENT would be better? ---] <small>(]/]/])</small> 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Aaaaaargh! No! There is ''endless'' precedent for not having, creating, keeping, encouraging or permitting Wikiprojects which advocate ''one side'' of a debate. All it does is polarise. It doesn't help that one of these had only three edits, one of which was from Greg Kohs. A meta-debate on meta-advertising, whether, and in what form, and so on, is fine, of course. Kohs seems to have interpreted it as implying we should have ads in mainspace though... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:24, 23 December 2024

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 and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
    CfD 0 0 0 28 28
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 2 1 3
    FfD 0 0 1 17 18
    RfD 0 0 10 25 35
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    ZebulonMorn

    Hi, ZebulonMorn (talk · contribs) has ignored continual warnings on a range of topics (manual of style in military icons, minor edit purpose, citing sources, and more recently has ignored consensus on a NPOV on a BLP article). Request admin intervention. --Engineerchange (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Engineerchange: can you provide the community with examples linked with WP:DIF's? Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Deepfriedokra: Some examples:
    - Manual of style on military icons: , , , (each of these edits are after the last warning on their talk page on Nov 29)
    - Minor edit tag: , , , (each from the last couple days)
    - NPOV about BLP: , , (user ignored feedback on their talk page and the page's talk page and has continued edit warring)
    - not citing sources or adding info w/o support: , , ,
    Hope this helps, --Engineerchange (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I've made several changes to the articles ZM's added to. I would concur that this is POV pushing and it appears he opposes this Sheriff. I have no strong opinions on this individual, but at least some of the claims that he's made are not supported by WP:RS and are in violation of that policy as well as WP:BLP. If it continues, a block to get the point across would be appropriate. Buffs (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
      ZM has continued to add negative/defamatory material about this individual against the general consensus of the editors involved. At this point, ZM, you need to use the talk page to come to a consensus. Otherwise, I support WP:PARTIALBLOCK as suggested by Deepfriedokra for further edits on this page. In addition, ZM has uploaded a CLEARLY copyrighted image straight from twitter and released it under a false license. At this point, ZM's attempt seems to be to besmirch the sheriff (no idea on the motive here). In Any case, a full block would be acceptable as well under WP:NOTHERE. Buffs (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Buffs: I obviously don't know ZM's personal motivations, but for a history of the threats and attacks made against Chitwood during his tenure, please see . --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • My inclination is a WP:PARTIALBLOCK from article space that can be unblocked if they answer here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
      Hey! I'm getting in touch with you about a notice. Editing pages is pretty easy, but I'm still figuring out how to navigate the rest, so I'm sorry I put it in the talk page first. I've seen notices and some complaints, so first I should say nothing is intentionally nefarious. As far as the military edits go, I've figured that out, based on MOS:ICONDECORATION and MOS:FLAGCRUFT, so I've since ceased. I'm originally from Volusia and still technically have my residency there, so I do feel responsible and knowledgeable about the topics, however, after overwhelming pushback, I was clearly wrong. I don't work for any politicians nor am I associated with any, but there are people I find interesting and think have made an impact locally and should be included, but I get that requires a certain threshold and I was turned down. I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble or get myself blocked. Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy until the past few days or so and I haven't had any serious issues that I'm aware of since. I've made many edits since and most have been checked by Eyer. Happy to answer anything else if needed! ZebulonMorn (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Two questions for ZebulonMorn: 1) Do you have any personal connection to John Flemm (who you wrote a draft about which you then blanked and for some reason moved to Draft:John) or any other politicians in Volusia County, Florida? 2) Is there a reason that your userpage largely copies Eyer's, including the userbox saying how long you've been an editor? (This isn't an accusation of anything against Eyer, to be clear.) -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Something about mimicry and flattery, I guess? I'm curious to hear @ZebulonMorn's answer, too. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      @ZebulonMorn, I don't see an answer to Tamzin's question about your userpage? -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Noting I have declined G7 on the draft because it is relevant to ongoing discussion here. No objection to G7 once discussion concludes. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
      Not an admin, but I was involved in previous discussions on the person's talk page, so is it acceptable for me to comment?
      The user in question has now deleted all past discussions on their talk page. I agree with above complaints that the user should at least be subjected to a partial block from editing articles about any Central Florida government officials. While Chitwood is the most egregious case, this user's entire edit history involves similar types of edits using unreliable sources in order to commit violations of WP:LP. The Chitwood article is not the only problem here, with this same user pushing a POV in the following edit (a "minor" edit?) which had already been removed and reverted . --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
      I would concur. Buffs (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    My issues with ZM have been his lack of edit summaries and the unwillingness to engage in discussion with multiple editors who warned him on his talk page, which recently appeared as this until he scrubbed the content without responding. Just today, he made this "minor edit" under his own self-stated rationale that "Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy" that he was editing, under, supposedly "until the past few days" but it never should have come this far.
    @ZebulonMorn has made a lot of messes for other editors to clean up, which he is unwilling even to talk about, let alone go back and fix, even after being asked multiple times to fix his mistakes. A Full Block is warranted. BBQboffin 03:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm sorry I was unclear on the use of "minor edit', I really didn't think it was too far, but I know better know. As far as that edit is concerned, was any of the information improperly sourced or unimportant? It hasn't been edited other than de-capitalization. I thought it was a good contribution that was similar other information under different offices. I'm really not trying to create "a lot of messes", I'm genuinely trying to contribute. As far as the engaging, that's my bad. I was still learning to figure out how to navigate wiki, but I've gotten better now. I'm not "unwilling" to talk though, I was trying to respond on talk pages for a couple days before I figured out this was the correct location, again my bad. I think a full block seems extreme, but that's not for me to decide. ZebulonMorn (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    And, as I posted on your talk page before you ignored my comment and deleted it, please review our policies such as WP:OVERLINK. In this edit for example, capitalizing words like "marketing", "full-time", "landscaping", "lifeguard", etc. are unnecessary. Cleaning up your messes like this and this takes time and effort. When another editor cites a rule that you broke, please read the rule and learn it, instead of joking about "ignore all rules" and making the same violation a dozen more times. BBQboffin 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Capitalization errors are clearly non-malicious edits and ignore all the rules, while tongue-in-cheek, is still official wiki policy. I've made over 1,000 edits, most of which remain unedited. If this is really the standard for a "full block", there's no point in anyone new genuinely attempting to edit wiki if they're blocked for capitalization mistakes.
    Again, I apologize for not understanding what the discussion pages were and the lack of communication. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    ZebulonMorn, can you respond to Tamzin's questions above? Spicy (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hello! My response to Deefriedokra was kind of an amalgamation response to a few of the questions from people. I believe it was answered there, but if there is anything more specific I'm happy to answer. ZebulonMorn (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    "Ignore all rules", in full, says; If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it. It does not mean that you can just do whatever you like. If other editors do not agree that your edit improved Misplaced Pages, or was necessary for maintenance, then it is not protected by "Ignore all rules." It does not excuse careless editing or flouting of policies and guidelines. Donald Albury 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's been a week. Could an admin be so kind as to weigh in here? Regardless of your conclusion ZM doesn't deserve to have this hanging over his head indefinitely. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'll renew my concern... Buffs (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's these kinds of edits that continue to concern me. The sheer volume of purported "reliable sources" that are being added by the user and us editors having to search and destroy which ones are valid. The user's continued argument that every source the user adds is "reliable" (see ). See - both sources appear reliable, but have no reference to the subject, completely ignoring WP:RSCONTEXT. --Engineerchange (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    @Engineerchange Hey, you might want to check the conversation again and do your own research first. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    These edits and conversations have been taking place just over the past few hours and are ongoing. It appears you missed both references. It would probably serve us all best to wait until we finish communicating before jumping into the noticeboard, especially when it's clearly premature. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @ZebulonMorn: Respectfully, my comments are not premature; this noticeboard discussion is still active. Your insistence on adding more words to argue your point does not mean it meets WP:CONSENSUS. For instance, your comment "second source references Paul Terry visiting the school" is an example of a 'passing reference' to a topic, these are not WP:RS. Citing the Facebook page for that preschool is not a reliable source. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    There are other WP:RS from the Orlando Sentinel, WOFL, and the county government. Facebook is just one source. I don't have control over WP:CONSENSUS, which is why were discussing on the nominating page? I'm explaining and defending my edits, as you're supposed to do. I'm also adding further information to the article that's been nominated for deletion, as is suggested to keep it from being deleted. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    On an AfD for a preschool, they mentioned "The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious" (with sources about Terry), to which I replied "And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? WP:NOTINHERITED." Instead of replying, they decided to add this information to the article, so now we have an article about a preschool containing a whole section about a deputy sheriff who "murdered his 10-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son before killing himself" in 2005, with the only connection being that the same person once visited that preschool in 1999! This raises serious WP:CIR issues. As the AfD nominator, I have not removed the info from the article, but it clearly doesn't belong there at all... Fram (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Removed. Rotary Engine 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks! Fram (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Appeal of my topic ban

    This has been open for two weeks, and @Stuartyeates: hasn't edited since the 16th. Given the discussion below, I'm closing this with the following notes:


    (1) The topic ban is not repealed.

    (2) Stuartyeates is heavily encouraged to only edit using one account, and one account only.

    If (2) is complied with (1) can be revisited in another six months or so. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    TL;DR: on (roughly) the 20th anniversary of joining en.wiki, I'm appealing my years-long topic ban from BLPs.

    After creating thousands of biographies (mainly of New Zealanders and/or academics) over more than a decade, on 25 Sept 2021 I created or expanded Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Doug Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, and John Werry with material on a then-current race controversy. I then continued editing as normal. Several months later (April '22) an editor raised issues with my edits of that day and I escalated to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Drama_at_Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. After much discussion I received an indefinite topic ban from BLPs:

    Stuartyeates is indefinitely topic banned from the subject area of biographies of living persons, broadly construed. (see Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Misplaced Pages community).

    Since the topic ban I've done some editing of en.wiki (>2,000 edits, some patrols and some barnstars), but I've been mainly active on wikidata (>60,000 edits, no barnstars).

    I accidentally broke the topic ban a couple of times as exemplified by my recent edits to John Dennison: I noticed a mistake on wikidata that was sourced to en.wiki; I fixed wikidata and then en.wiki before realising I wasn't allowed to make that edit and self-reverted (still not fixed on en.wiki at the time of writing). The first time this happened I reported it to the closing admin who indicated that if I caught myself and reverted it wasn't a problem (see User_talk:Swarm/Archive_21).

    I'll readily admit that I went harder than I should have on 25 Sept 2021. I a non-BLP for the controversy was the right option. Mouthing off on twitter was the wrong option. I feel that I've done my time for what was clearly a one-off. If the topic ban is removed I'll not repeat that.

    Full disclosure: I was involved in Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Department of Corrections (New Zealand) and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Stuartyeates/Archive. I have previous appealled this topic ban at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive347#Appeal_my_topic_ban_from_BLPs. The discussion at User_talk:"Fish_&_Chip"_flavoured_ice_cream#block_appeal may also be relevant.

    It is my intention to notify Misplaced Pages:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board of this appeal, since all this is New Zealand-related and I have a long history with those folks. I'll also be notifying the closing admin. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    Comments by uninvolved editors

    Support unbanning. A single accidental mistake on a different wiki wouldn't violate topic ban on the ENWP slightly. Making BLPs is a risky task, I just made some BLPs which are a translation from RUWP, but one of them is nominated for deletion. Just be careful of the text and use sources carefully. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    Comment @Stuartyeates: You've glossed over having deliberately violated WP:BLP as part of a disagreement with others. (Per @Jayron32 and Cullen328:'s opposes in last appeal.)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    • I would want to hear from the other involved editors before endorsing a complete lifting of the restriction, but I will suggest limiting the restriction to "race/ethnicity topics involving living people"; that should ensure that Wikidata-related edits do not inadvertently violate a ban. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support lifting the ban or limiting it to the restriction suggested above, per my comments at the previous appeal. The ban seemed overbroad to me in the first place: yes, the conduct was egregious, but the remedy was not tailored. As I wrote two years ago, I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-admin comment. I was visiting this page to check on another discussion and happened to see this thread.)
    • Deeply concerned about the sheer number of alt accounts. It took some digging but I found this comment at an afd related to Donald Trump, which makes this a BLP issue. Another alt created a talk page for a blp. Perhaps not a huge deal in and of itself but technically a violation nonetheless. And Another afd comment by another sock, concerning a list of people, some of whom are alive. Creation of a redirect to a blp by another sock earlier this year. With so many other accounts, who knows what other violations may exist? I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction. Actually I don't support this unless and until Stuart restricts himself to one account for at least six months. It's not feasible to monitor fifty+ alts for violations. Just Step Sideways 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I concede that these are breaches of my topic ban, I'll take that on the chin. I'm sorry I made those edits, I shouldn't have. In my defense (a) They're 100% accidental (b) None of these appears to be related to the issues that led to the topic ban or contentious in any way (c) There are four of them, over the same time I count seven barnstar or barnstar-like awards on my talk archives, so they don't reflect the body of my work over that time. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
      Those are four that I found, my point stands that it is almost impossible to know how many more there may be considering the absurd number of alts you have. Barnstars don't change any of that. Just Step Sideways 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
      I also find it hard to believe that you accidentally commented on Donald Trump. He's famously totally alive. Just Step Sideways 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I was prepared to advocate on your behalf... but I'm also concerned based on the number of accounts and what's gone on with them. I'm also looking through your talk page archives (#25 and #26) and noticing that the barnstars and related awards I'm seeing were actually mostly given by me. Archive 25 has 6 awards given by me as as the result of your participation in backlog drives, one for your participation / contributions for the year (end of year NPP award, given by Dr vulpes), and an AfC backlog drive award (from Robertsky). #26 has an NPP backlog drive award as well (also given by me). I do appreciate your contributions to NPP, but there is a bit of a difference in people going out of their way to give barnstars for great work and receiving them as the result of participation in backlog drives.
    Anyways though, back to the key issue for me, your use of multiple accounts. JSS said "I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction.", is this something you're willing to commit to @Stuartyeates? I personally don't understand your usage of, and the large amount of alts that you have. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oppose These alt accounts are a nonstarter for me (some blocked) as are the acknowledged breaches of the topic ban. If they were inadvertent or debatable, I could possibly see fit to give them some slack, but what I'm seeing here doesn't give me a good feeling that lessons have been learned. Show us you can abide for at least 6 months and commit to a single account and I would reconsider. Buffs (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Why I use alts

    About 15 years ago during a round of the eternal "should all newcomers be welcomed (by a bot)?" discussion, some HCI person wrote a blog post on a long-defunct uni blog site. They said experienced editors are underestimating (a) how many new users are being welcomed (we only see the problems) and (b) the retention bonus of real human interaction. They challenged us to create a new user account and try editing using it for a while. Some of us did. Some of us found that editing with a clean account removed distractions (no watchlists to watch, no alerts to check, no !votes to vote in because we weren't allowed, no tools to use, no noticeboards like this to update, etc) and that we enjoyed focusing on the barebones editing, usually wikignoming. Discussion about the welcoming issue were less clear cut, but led to a bit of a game, where you see how many edits you can go without getting a user talk page. The game got harder when some wikis introduced auto-welcoming and clicking on an interwiki link lost you the game.

    Most of my 'game' edits were tidying up backlogs so minor / obscure they're not even tracked as backlogs. So https://quarry.wmcloud.org/';%20drop%20database%20prod; is a series of queries finding old articles without a talk page (and thus not assigned to wikiproject) so I can add them to wikiprojects. The username is taken from the cartoon at https://xkcd.com/327/ . For the last decade, me 'game' editing was en.wiki editing I've actually really enjoyed.

    Some of my edits are work related. See wikidata:Wikidata:ExLibris-Primo for information on what kind of thing that is. There may or may not be a new class of en.wiki editors: librarians who want to fix facts which have flowed from en.wiki to wikidata to the librarians' library catalogs; whether we'll notice them in the deluge of other random users remains to be seen.

    One of my alts was created to test for a bug which is now fixed in the upcoming IP Account thingie.

    Several times I've created a new account to be sure that something works the way I remember it, in order to help someone else or to take a screenshot (for socials or a blog). WMF improvements have been focused on the onboarding process and branding so there have been a lot of changes over the last 20 years. If you haven't created an alt on en.wiki in the last decade, I doubt it will be as you remember it. Trying to 'reset' an old account has some interesting effects too, but that's another story.

    Some of my alts have a humourous intent, User:Not your siblings' deletionist is my most longstanding one, and I was setting up several alts for a christmas joke when the issue at User_talk:"Fish_&_Chip"_flavoured_ice_cream#block_appeal blew up. I've had positive feedback on my joke alts, most was off-wiki, but see for example User_talk:Stuartyeates/Archive_1#I_like_your_username.

    As far as I can tell there are no en.wiki policies against how I use alts . As far as I can tell there are no WMF policies against how I use alts. I'm aware that a number of people appear to be deeply opposed to it, but I've always been unclear why, maybe you'd like to try and explain it?

    As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban. They were all done on my main account which is also my real name and the one I use on my socials. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban. Wrong. A sanction applies to the person operating the account regardless of whether they are using their main account or an alternate account. You are appealing an editing restriction. It is unreasonable to even ask the community to determine that all fifty or so accounts have not been violating that restriction, but by appealing you are essentially asking that. It took me quite some time to find the examples above, due to the sheer number of accounts involved. I certainly did not check every single one, but it is reasonable to conclude there are more violations than the ones I have already brought forth. El Beeblerino 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Beeblebrox, I'm confused about this discussion of "alts" – do you have a list of these somewhere? If they aren't disclosed clearly on wiki, and they're being used to evade a topic ban or to participate in project space, they aren't alts – they're socks. – bradv 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    More importantly, does Stuartyeates have a list of them somewhere? 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was working off the list of admitted alts here. It's... a lot. And no, they are not all clearly tagged as alts. I'm actually rather surprised this did not earn them a block. Perhaps @HJ Mitchell: can offer some insight into that? El Beeblerino 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think that's hardly adequate per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well,I blocked several of them a while ago, I think following a thread on checkuder-l. The creation of so many accounts, especially with borderline disruptive usernames, naturally drew suspicion. I'm not sure what Stuart was trying to do. I don't know if he intended such a good impression of a troll or LTA but that's what he achieved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm unaware of any accusations that I've used alts as sockpuppets, except for the decades-old allegations above which were clearly boomerang. If there are any allegations that I've done this, please be clear about them. There is a list of all alts I'm aware of at User_talk:"Fish_&_Chip"_flavoured_ice_cream#block_appeal. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Stuartyeates: To be clear, the TBAN-violating edits on your alts do constitute sockpuppetry as a matter of policy. Honestly I'd thought policy forbids any undisclosed alternate account use for someone subject to an editing restriction, but it looks like the letter of policy, at least, only says that for clean starts. I wonder if this should be clarified in policy, as it's not really possible to enforce editing restrictions against someone when you don't know what username they're using. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well said. The TBAN applies to the person behind the accounts regardless of which account they use. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    And also every single edit Stuartyeates has made since January 2024 is a sockpuppetry violation since several of the alts were blocked then (there are also blocks from earlier but they were username softblocks so can be ignored here), right? * Pppery * it has begun... 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art

    Patrolling recent uploads at Commons, I noticed that Socialpsych22 (User:Socialpsych22/sandbox), ChloeWisheart (User:ChloeWisheart), and AlicerWang (User:AlicerWang/sandbox) all uploaded AI images and put them in what look to be school essays within a short period of time. It looks like someone might be teaching a class and using Misplaced Pages as part of it, without teaching them how Misplaced Pages article are structured or about WP:NOT. Figured I'd brink it to folks' attention here. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) Even though none of the three accounts seem to be students in a WP:WEP affiliate course, you could still try asking about them at WP:ENB on the oftf chance that one of the Wiki ED advisors that typically help students remembers a username. Otherwise, I don't think there's much to do if there are no serious copyright (images or text) or other policy violations. Generally, users are given a bit of leeway to work on things in their userspace and it's possible these could be good-faith drafts, i.e. not really eligible for speedy deletion per WP:U5. I guess the "draft" that's not already in a user sandbox could be moved to one just to avoid it mistakenly being tagged for speedy deletion per U5, and perhaps welcome templates added each user's user talk page, but (at least at first glance) I'm not seeing a reason why any of these would need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC); Post edited. -- 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) I've moved the userspace one to draftspace and left a message on that editor's talk page asking if it's for school work, so hopefully they'll be able to give more information. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Another one just appeared at User:Northsoutheastwestt/sandbox. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    The good news is that the few references I checked were real, not LLM hallucinations. Hoping the AI is only used for images, not text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    Is there any kind of guideline about including AI artwork in articles on here or is it just based on people's feelings in the moment at this point? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    There'sn't. jp×g🗯️ 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    IMHO we shouldn't have any AI artwork in articles, because leaving all "artists' livelihood" concerns aside, image-generating AI is, as I understand it, often trained using copyrighted images - which makes their creations copyright violations. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is not true. jp×g🗯️ 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Commons treats AI works as being in the public domain because copyright requires human authorship, however there's a warning about derivative works. I personally agree with The Bushranger that they should all be treated a copyvios, but that's something that's working its way through the courts, IIRC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I would concur with jpxg. You're incorrect on this front. By that logic, anyone who was trained in artistic methods of the another living/recently deceased artist (say Bob Ross) couldn't legally make similar paintings. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is prima facie possible to create derivative (e.g. copyright-encumbered) works in literally any medium. This does not mean that all works are derivatives. For example, this ASCII sequence is a derivative work:
    _o_
 |   <--- Spider-Man
/ \

    This does not mean that the ASCII character set itself infringes copyright, nor that all ASCII sequences infringe copyright. jp×g🗯️ 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Note: I have informed the education noticeboard of this discussion. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Chicdat ban appeal

    Unanimous support for lifting the topic ban from project space and editing redirects to pages in the project space. I will reiterate Lindsay's advice that you are likely to have eyes on you as you fully return, so please take everything you wrote seriously and abide by it. But in the meantime, welcome back to project space :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Three years ago, in November of 2021, I was topic-banned from the project namespace following a community discussion. Six months later, I appealed the ban, but the proposal was unanimously opposed and archived without closure. Through the rest of 2022, my editing gradually decreased in frequency, and I was basically semi-retired for over a year due to real-life stuff. Lately I've become more active again. In the past few months I've !voted on many RMs, almost all of which have been closed accordingly. An RM that I recently nominated is heading towards consensus to move to a shorter title, a marked departure from some of the proposals I made in 2021, most of which got almost no support and had already been perennially discussed.

    Back in 2022 when I appealed my ban, and I had to explain why I was banned, I gave a reason that looked very good, but was really just parroting what other people had told me. What it really all boils down to was: I thought I knew what I didn't know. I thought I was always right. I constantly deluded myself about my experience. When I commented on or opened a discussion, I either gave a half-baked rationale that had no basis in policy, or cited something that had nothing to do with the comment. Often I went above commenting, botching many closes, and tried to do things myself, often moving pages in such a manner. I just didn't understand these things. I made many edits like that. My second-ever edit was one of those. The last one was moving a page when I should have opened an RM. That was a year and a half ago.

    During my long semi-wikibreak, I learned something. Before, when I envisioned having my ban lifted, I envisioned doing everything I had done before the ban, but non-disruptively. That was really stupid of me. If the ban is lifted, I will stick to doing things I understand. This isn't any kind of voluntary restriction like I had beforehand, it's just common sense. If I don't understand something, I won't get involved in it. Even admins do this: there are hundreds of admins who don't have a clue how to perform a histmerge, so they, understandably, don't perform them. Back then, if I had been in that situation, I would have jumped right in, and totally screwed it up. Now, I would stay away, and let the people who know what they're doing do the work. I know not to try to do things, or participate in discussions and areas that I don't understand.

    Things have changed. Apart from RMs, one example is at Talk:Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi. This is the kind of thing that would have led to an edit war back in the bad old days: a disagreement over what an article should say and include. Instead, in AGF and BRD, another editor and I, after a short discussion, collaborated to create a compromise revision between mine and theirs. As an aside, while participating in an Israel-Palestine RM and after making a comment about needless bickering between ideologies, Chess, a user who supported my ban in 2021, pointed me to contribute at a draft MOS guideline (something well within the scope of the ban).

    So what will I do? For the most part, the same kind of thing I'm doing right now: getting my magnum opus, List of Atlantic tropical storms, on the road to FL, working on my two new sandboxes of the same sort, participating in RMs that interest me, the occasional burst of recent-changes patrolling, little assorted gnoming fixes... but there are a few more things that I understand that I want to get into doing. Before my ban, I was a pending changes reviewer, one of the few things with which I didn't run into incidents, but voluntarily had it removed. So if unbanned, I'll go over to PERM (not RfP) and ask to have the right back. If there's a discussion about an area in which I have experience, such as my home WikiProject Tropical cyclones, that happens to be in projectspace (like an AFD for a hurricane), I'll add my 2¢. If there's a discussion at MR that is a supervote, I'll !vote accordingly (but won't nominate anything, since I don't trust myself to do so yet).

    And finally, some assorted appendices. First of all, to the community, thank you for banning me. The IP who opened the discussion is sadly no longer active, but thank you to Cabayi, Levivich, Thryduulf, and ProcrastinatingReader, who supported the ban; and to the closing admin, Daniel. You saw what I did not: I needed a few years away from that area of Misplaced Pages to come back with a more experienced eye. Bans are preventative, not punitive, and this one was a textbook case. All of you prevented a great deal of further disruption. Finally, only tangentially related, but while reverting vandalism the other day, I came across (based on the brainrot username) a bored teenager who was vandalizing. When giving a level 2 warning, I tried to personalize it a bit by adding that vandalism isn't very sigma. To my surprise, the user replied, apologizing for vandalizing. An absolute gem.

    Thank you for considering my request.

    🐔 Chicdat   13:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    I don't know (or remember) the background to this, but that strikes me as such an earnest and insightful reflection, that I'm sure I'd be happy to support this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm particularly impressed with the examples of corroborative editing, especially in such a potentially heated (and officially controversial) topic as the Arab–Israeli conflict. And per DoubleGrazing, that's a seriously introspective display of self-knowledge. SerialNumber54129 14:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    I read through the initial ANI that led to the ban and the unsuccessful ban-appeal discussion. Chicdat's tone and self-reflection in this appeal is a stark contrast to the obfuscation and deflection in those earlier discussions, and displays a noticeable change in editor maturity. I support lifting the projectspace ban. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    Support unban per above. I too am impressed by the insightfullness.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm surprised that conversation ended in a t-ban from projectspace (I don't recall supporting or opposing the ban, and didn't follow the discussion to the end), and I apologize for inciting you to try to get around your ban.
    This is a scenario in which I'd support an unban, though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Chess: No problem. If this passes, by the way, I'd be happy to help work on that MOS proposal. 🐔 Chicdat   16:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support unban. I've been in occasional contact with Chicdat over the years, and didn't even know about the topic ban until the user reached out to be about their appeal. Having seen impressive editor growth, I think Chicdat is more than ready to be a productive contributor. I also apprecate the creative take with dealing with that vandal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support, to my surprise; i remember the name Chicdat and the assorted troubles the user had, so much that i Wow-ed aloud in my surprise at first seeing this appeal. But, as both DoubleGrazing and SN 54129's comments point out, this appeal is pretty much the most realistic and self-recognising that we could wish for. My only caution, to Chicdat, is that you are likely to have eyes on you as you fully return, so please take everything you wrote seriously and abide by it. Welcome back ~ Lindsay 12:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

    Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

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

      That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 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)

    Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block.

    See User talk:82james82. This user created an undoubtedly spammy page, and deleting it was justifiable. However, they were also issued an indef hard block tagged as {{uw-spamublock}} by Jimfbleak. There is no username violation, therefore this is a bad block. While I understand asking some questions, trying to educate a user as to why their deleted content was not appropriate, I don't understand why multiple admins, specifically Significa liberdade and 331dot did not simply undo the obviously bad block.

    The username has no obvious or even implied connection to the subject the user was writing about, therefore there was no blatant violation of the username policy, so the block was invalid. Whether the blocking admin chose the wrong setting by accident or on purpose, it was a manifestly incorrect block. I am not at all comfortable with multiple admins seeing this and letting them remain blocked while they wait for the blocking admin to come by and explain an obviously incorrect action.

    Just to be clear, I've already undone the block, this is more about admins holding each other accountable and being willing to reverse obviously wrong decisions where a user is blocked without justification. El Beeblerino 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    You have unilaterally undone the block. You could have waited for Jimfbleak to consent to the unblock. A block for advertising or promotion would have been legitimate. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    The block reasoning was manifestly invalid, and we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page. El Beeblerino 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi there! As was mentioned below, I am a fairly new administrator (September) and am still learning the ropes. I often try to be kind and see the best in editors when they've been blocked. In the month or so I've been helping out with unblocks, I haven't seen your name around. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, I actually just changed my name and my sig, but also I've been more active at AFD, and on the other end of the blocking process at UAA. I do think it is a shame that so few admins work unblock requests, when it is only a few people, their opinions become de facto policy, which isn't good. I do know you are a fairly new admin, as I was one of the first dozen supporters at your RFA, under my then-username Just Step Sideways. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't like what I see here.
    What concerns me is that you don't seem to have questioned the username violation aspect of this block at all. You could see the deleted page, and could see that it had no connection to the username, and that the name is clearly a common first name with some numbers around it. Being able to see and correct obvious administrative errors is part of the job, in particular when reviewing unblock requests from brand-new users. El Beeblerino 03:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Beeblebrox, let's say she had, and she reversed the block instead of asking about the connection to the company. When that editor then recreates their spam page and is indeffed as an advertising-only account, and an irritated admin swings by her talk page to chew her out, are you going to stick up for her? -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for asking. Yes I would. However, you've misrepresented what happened. Again I will assume it is an simple mistake, but asking about the connection to the company is not what she did, she ignored that aspect entirely. It was 331dot who finally raised a question about it. El Beeblerino 04:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    What? Hello there! Can you tell me why you were interested in creating the Tripleye article? Do you have any connections with Tripleye? How is this not asking about the connection to the company? -- asilvering (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ok, My bad, I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about asking how the username relates to the company, which as far as anyone can tell it does not. El Beeblerino 06:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No indeed. What I'm saying is that, if Significa liberdade had unblocked without first determining whether the editor had a COI and educating them on what that would mean for their editing on Misplaced Pages, chances are very high that the editor would return to the same behaviour - creating AI-scented promotional articles. If that happened, someone would again CSD them, and I expect they would be blocked again (this time with more accurate rationale). Maybe after a few more warnings, maybe not. Probably some flak for SL, either as a direct "wtf are you doing, that editor had an obvious COI" talk page message, or a passive-aggressive swipe at her in an edit summary or block rationale or something. This would be a worse outcome in every way than taking the time to check in with the blocking admin and figure out whether the editor has a COI or not before unblocking. -- asilvering (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ah I'd no idea you'd changed your name. Secretlondon (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    So, it wasn't even a posted article, but just a sandbox? Why couldn't the editor have had it pointed out to them that there needed to be improvements to fix the issues? I also don't agree with the whole "the admin who did a thing had to show up and agree or comment before you can do anything" nonsense. This entire thing seems overbearing, bitey and just poor admin conduct altogether. Silverseren 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Silver seren, that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: WP:RAAA and WP:Blocking policy#Unblocking. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The problem with said policy being the text are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators, as we can see from the above case and in many other cases (GreenLipstickLesbian has an example list below). There really is not a reason to presume that admins carefully consider their actions, personally. Particularly when that consideration is not showcased from an action in the first place. Silverseren 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I left a note explaining our rules for new articles about companies. That’s usually a good first step when a new editor writes a promotional article.
    I can no longer see deleted contributions but all I see mentioned on 82James82’s talk page is a deleted sandbox. My understanding is that we are more tolerant of subpar material in sandboxes than article space. —A. B. 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    That is my understanding as well. It wasn't submitted to AFC or anything, just a sandbox, and if it had been submitted at AFC they would've rejected it, not blocked the user. This was the users's first edit, and they got an instant no-warning indef hard block, and when they appealed they got an interrogation session instead of a reversal of the unjustified block. El Beeblerino 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    The ideal admin, in my mind, considers the protection of new editors to be one of their highest duties. They should actively look for justifications to prevent or undo blocks. An admin who leans toward blocking without warning, or leans toward refusing unblocks when the editor expresses good faith, is more dangerous than a thousand vandals. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Good deletion by JFB, bad block by JFB, and good unblock by JSS Beeb. But after the unblock, there no attempt at all to discuss this with JFB, SL, or 331 before coming here. Couldn't we try that first? Shouldn't we? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think we need to have more public discussions about the community's expectation with regard to the treatment of new users. I know you have concerns that the intent of such discussions is to escalate matters, but my intent is the opposite. The two recent recalls happened because the admin corps did not effectively hold colleagues accountable. If we establish a public consensus here that clarifies that that is something we do want from admins, that should decrease the chances of further ugly recall proceedings. El Beeblerino 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    My user talk is hardly not public. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. GiantSnowman 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    (non-admin nosy parker comment) Significa Liberdade is one of our newest admins, so I think it's completely understandable that she would be nervous about going against two long-standing administrators. I think, @Beeblebrox, discussing this with her first would have been a good idea.
    331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined. They do demonstrate a pattern of finding reasons not to overturn suboptimal blocks, and that's a pattern you should maybe think about changing. I know you made each of these declines in good faith, and you accepted that they other administrators had made them in good faith. And I didn't go hunting for these- these were already on my radar for different reasons, and I made a note of them. Sorry for the dates being all out of place.
    • 2023-11-03 This user was indeffed for "disruptive editing", because on their twentieth edit they added "Category:Southeast Europe" to a plant that grew in south east Europe. (But was their twentieth edit and they'd never been told about redlinked categories before- just welcomed with a 4im vandalism warning for adding Category:American Surnames to an American surname article. No, I'm not kidding). In their unblock request, they said I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.. 331dot declined the request, saying Once you have gained a better understanding of policies, and have an edit you wish to make, please request unblock at that time.
    • 2024-06-01 This sock block was overturned by @JBW (with the rationale This block is clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts), but 331dot had declined the initial unblock request using the justification You used one account to comment on the talk page of the other, this makes it seem like you are multiple peopleI see no grounds here at this time to remove the block. (For clarification, the user never hid the fact they used two accounts. I don't see any WP:BADSOCK, neither did JBW, so I don't know how 331dot did).
    • 2022-10-15 This user was no-warning indeffed as NOTHERE due to their edits to the common.js/monobook.css page, and because the blocking admin seemingly did not notice the fact that the account also made several minor grammatical corrections to mainspace articles, had fixed formatting errors, and added cleanup tags. 331dot declined their unblock, saying This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. (What vandalism or disruptive editing?)
    • 2023-11-12 This user was no-warning indeffed for making tables in a wikiproject. (No, I'm not kidding). A more experienced editor confirmed that they'd asked the other editor to assist in projectspace. 331dot declined to unblock them, saying It's not at all obvious to me that's why you are here.. No, I don't get all the Wikiproject people either, but the community consensus says that yes, those editors are HERE.
    TL;DR: I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block is not a good attitude towards unblocks. We want editors to come back, and learn from their mistakes. We don't demand perfection. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yikes! A. B. 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The decline reason for Pbnjb1, with Yamla enforcing said provision no less, seems shamelessly punitive. Only unblocking when they say they have an edit to make? Just wow.... ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    That block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I will also point out their unblock denial at User_talk:Big_Thumpus, where a new editor who makes what appear to be respectful inquiries is accused of WP:SEALIONING (frankly, I don't think they're POV pushing so much as just being polite, which we should encourage) and blocked for sockpuppetry with no further explanation of any sockpuppetry at all, and with a CU stating there is no evidence at all. That editor, by the way, still has not been unblocked, despite being willing to discuss concerns civilly with other editors and with administrators and neither has User:Ceboomer (the 4th example listed). EggRoll97 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    To be fair, there are only two options with that user - (a) they are a sock/troll/LTA, and (b) they are someone who is familiar with Misplaced Pages, perhaps editing as an IP, who made the spectacularly bad decision to create an account and head straight for ANI to vote for banning Fram (and you would have thought in that situation they would have known it would look suspicious). In that context, the CU data being negative may not be the positive thing it might look like, as if they are the former they probably would know how to avoid CU issues. Yes, we should AGF, but I can see why people didn't in that case. The other cases may be more problematic, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    How can you see why people didn't? There is no "obvious evidence to the contrary" unless I'm missing something, the evidence presented is entirely circumstantial and non-obvious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Horse Eye's Back You wouldn't be even slightly suspicious of a brand new editor that dived into an ANI block discussion with one of their first few edits? I would. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The guideline isn't slightly suspicious its obvious evidence. As a non-admin I would also have to temper any suspicion I had with being found liable for biting a newcomer, hence even when I'm almost entirely certain I still have to be open and respectful (and to just walk away when I can't actually prove anything). I do think that we tend to be pretty harsh with newcomers... If they're not good editors we ding them for being incompetent net negatives and if they're good we start calling them puppets. With all honesty I can say that I don't envy you admins though, the inherent conflict between being swift and severe with socks and AGF, BITE, etc is one of the great questions we face as a community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, which is why I didn't block them (I saw the edit when it was made). Looking at their previous few edits - using @ in their first edit, spelling lead as "lede", diving straight into AMPOL, that is a judgment call someone had to make. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Black Kite hold up, surely spelling lead as "lede" is evidence that they aren't a long-time wikipedian? We spell it "lead". It's American journalists who spell it "lede". -- asilvering (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I see most editors refer to "lede" not "lead", which while I can't stand the terminology personally is well documented as a concept per WP:LEDE. It is therefore not indication of an editors' experience, ever. CNC (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The linked page says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and seems to overall document that we use lead not lede. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    People using "lede" on Misplaced Pages is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I see plenty of long-standing editors use it, so I also don't take it as indicative of anything nefarious. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    @GhostOfDanGurney agreed, I hate it. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think there's probably a conversation about how unblocks are handled that is worth having, but I'm sure having trouble getting fired up about this unblock in particular. An editor makes a blatantly promotional LLM-generated page, which is deleted; once they're blocked, two admins politely ask about the editor's possible connection to the company. It looks to me like it was headed for an unblock. No one's been rude or made threats, including the editors who dropped templated notices earlier. This looks better to me than most interactions I see between newcomers writing promo and experienced editors. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin 
    == Tripleye ==
Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules.
The company equips engineering teams with the tools needed to enable fully autonomous vehicles or specific autonomous functionalities. Its camera-based approach, rather than relying on LiDAR, delivers unmatched visual detail, scalability, affordability, and versatility.
By leveraging advanced computer vision and AI technologies, Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems tailored to their unique operational demands. The company’s patented technology, developed by an experienced team with a history of groundbreaking research and innovation, outperforms other solutions on the market.
Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City.
== History ==
Tripleye’s origins trace back to early work by Jens Schick and David Wegner as far back as 2013. Jens Schick, a pioneer in autonomous vehicle technology, built the first autonomous car at Daimler in 1994 as part of a groundbreaking project called ‘Prometheus.’ This was the first-ever autonomous vehicle, predating the 2004 DARPA challenge by a decade and marking Europe’s leading role in AV innovation.
After Daimler, Jens joined Bosch to establish its vision group from scratch and later launched Myestro Interactive, a research company focused on autonomous vehicle sensing technologies. In 2019, Jens met Francois Dubuisson, a seasoned entrepreneur with extensive experience in building startups. Recognising the transformative potential of Jens’ innovations, Francois joined forces with him to start a new venture, and Tripleye was born.
== Technology ==
Tripleye’s technology is built on a unique camera-based approach that offers unmatched visual detail, scalability, and cost efficiency compared to traditional LiDAR systems. By combining advanced computer vision and AI-driven analytics, Tripleye enables the development of fully autonomous systems and customised functionalities tailored to diverse industry needs.
With a robust foundation of patented innovations and decades of expertise, the company delivers hardware and software modules designed to outperform market competitors. This technology is ideal for industries requiring precise, adaptable, and scalable solutions.
== Impact ==
Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including:
* Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions.
* Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups.
These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.
== References ==
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech)
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024)
* (https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)
    One thing worth all of us considering, when dealing with potential spammers, is that if someone is using ChatGPT, as James appears to have here, that makes it a lot harder to infer their motivation, for better and for worse. That is to say, someone could be a completely inept spammer using ChatGPT to masquerade as a moderately ept spammer, or could be a good-faith editor who's made the foolish decision to rely on ChatGPT and has inadvertently used a spammy tone as a result. In this case, the deletion was definitely within reason under G11, but it's a good illustration of why blocking on the first offense of spam is usually overkill, unless it's like blatant link-spamming ("for the best online slots click here" etc.).Jimfbleak, I'm wondering if you maybe have some script misconfigured, or if there's a misunderstanding on policy here, as pertains to username blocks? I noticed Special:Contributions/Onüç Kahraman yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as Onüç Kahraman is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like they were using User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage, a script I also use. It is somewhat easy to select the wrong drop downs, or to use the default selections on autopilot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I was prepared to ask the blocking admin to unblock but I wanted the user to show that they knew their text was promotional. I didn't see a username issue, but I'm not perfect so I was asking Jimfbleak what it was, if anything. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      You've been working around username issues a long time, and doing a lot of good work. I think you have the necessary experience and judgement to see that there was not a blatant violation here. I really feel like we're falling down in our treatment of new users who aren't behaving maliciously but just don't understand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. I assure you I'm not trying to have anyone burned at the stake here, I just think we need to address these issues and be more willing to undo obviously incorrect actions without waiting as long as it takes for the admin who made the error to explain themselves. El Beeblerino 23:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      I get it, but sometimes I like to make sure that I haven't missed something. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'll repeat something I said in User talk:Tamzin § Administrative culture:

      I think the root problem here is with WP:RAAA. It begins Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. I mean. Fucking seriously? Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration speaks for itself. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block.  ...

      So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If another admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that.

      -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don't think the allowed actions in Misplaced Pages:RAAA are all that problematic, though I do agree with you about the presumptions in the preamble. You can reverse if the following are met:
      1. Good cause
      2. Careful thought
      3. If the admin is presently available: consultation. So shoot them a message, and if they don't respond within a reasonably short period of time, proceed anyway
      Those three steps are not very restrictive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      They might not be very restrictive in theory, but they are in practice. It's far easier to get desysopped for a bad unblock than for a bad block. In effect the rule becomes that you need to not just try to talk with the admin, but actually need their permission. That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy. Or to put it more simply: We can't all be Beeblebrox. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Thank god for Beeblebrox then... We can't have all the admins form a Blue wall of silence... Somebody has to be the "bad brick" for the larger society to function. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

      That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy.

      Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to having this become a policy. Of course, there should be some latitude for the blocking admin's discretion, but a block with no WP:ADMINACCT explanation should be able to be reverted by another admin. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      We've had a parallel to this idea in deletion policy (para 2 here) for like forever, and the world's stubbornly refused to end. I do worry somewhat about the effect it'd have with WP:UNBLOCKABLES. —Cryptic 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      As one of the relative newbies around here, I've kind of assumed that the RAAA thing with unblocks is a hangover from the Bad Old Days of wandering cowboy admins who needed rules like this to keep the wheel-warring in check. I don't tend to mind following this gentlemen's agreement, since I value the second look. But it's the admins who make the bad blocks that are also the least likely to be affable about you lifting them. Then we end up with the problem Tamzin's described. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • It's great to welcome new users and assume good faith, but Misplaced Pages will be neck-deep in spam if junk like the above is not handled firmly. If I had seen it, I would have ground my teeth and moved on because why should I get heaps from people who think there is value in "These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries." There is more and more of this stuff, and soon people will be able to ask an AI bot to author and post their fluff on Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      Literally nobody is arguing that the page was acceptable or that the deletion was incorrect. The issue is the subsequent block and making the user wait, blocked, until it was convenient for the blocking admin to respond. If you found yourself blocked for reasons that were manifestly incorrect, would you not expect and hope that reviewing admins would reverse it? El Beeblerino 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      If I had been the user who posted that advert as their first edit, I would know why I had been blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      You seem to be entirely missing the point that this was an indef hard block because of the supposed combination of promotional edits and a promotional username, when there is literally no issue of any kind with the user name. We can AGF that this was simply an misclick, but we shouldn't pretend there is a real issue with the name because of it. El Beeblerino 04:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I try to educate users as to why I have deleted their hard work with User:Deepfriedokra/g11 or User:Deepfriedokra/del. For the most part, I prefer to give them the opportunity to mend their ways in the context of User:Deepfriedokra#DFO's rule of thumb. Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out. It is important to try to facilitate that emergence, though sometimes a block is required to do so.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I want to second that Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out. (well, perhaps a slightly modified Inside every disruptive editor is potentially a constructive editor trying to get out.) One of the people brought on to talk about wikipedia in a recent NPR piece described a vandal to core editor conversion sparked in part by effective and positive engagement on their talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do think we, and I include myself here, have gotten too hardcore about blocking over one or two promo edits, in particular when they aren't even in article space. I'm working on some proposals to address this right now. El Beeblerino 04:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Something that reiterates "we tell new users that their sandbox is for screwing around, don't CSD them for screwing around in it" would be hugely welcome. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just spent a few minutes chasing my tail looking for anything that makes it clear where the line is, and all I came up with is that you can't have attack content, copyvios, or other types of "not acceptable anywhere, period type of content. I didn't see anything about promotional content in sandboxes. If I've missed it somehow, someone please let me know where it is. El Beeblerino 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    {{Db-spamuser}} covers userpages, which I guess personal sandboxes are a subset of, that's all I could find. El Beeblerino 05:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, there isn't anything clearly explaining where the line is, that's my point. I've seen quite a lot of "good faith" promo editing tagged for G11/U5 in sandboxes, editors blocked for having promo there, etc etc. I'll happily do the promo username+edits blocks or vaporize chatGPT nonsense, but deleting/blocking someone for sandbox edits when the template right in front of their eyes says it's for experimentation is really over-the-top bitey, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe it's time we warn these users that sandboxes are not a completely safe haven to test whatever they want, because as I see it, the user's sandbox template did not bring up the reasons why one edits in the sandbox might be deleted (whether from U5 or G11 or sth else). 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Please think about the long-term consequences of a rule saying that anyone can post anything so long as it is in their user space, or marked as "sandbox" or whatever. Will we wait a year to see if an SPA refashions their spam into an FA, then (if not) add a delete request tag, then discuss the deletion request? That won't scale. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. El Beeblerino 06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    It seems pretty clear to me: it's potentially a gate to letting spam "articles" stick around 'because they're in sandboxes'. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    If a sandbox is clearly G11, and IMHO we've become overly inclusive of any COI editing as G11, then it should be deleted. But the creator needs to be educated as to why. And yes, I share the concern about people using Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I know some would leap at any loophole. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Beeblebrox: Ah, yes. The Ghost of Wheel-Wars Past. Before my time really, but you can still hear the chains rattle after nearly two decades. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    As ScottishFinnishRadish correctly surmised, I use Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage script, and I'm aware that it's easy to select the wrong drop down, so I always check. However, it appears that in this case I still managed to fat finger an obviously incorrect rationale, mea culpa, I can only apologise for that. I don't think that the G11 was incorrect, there's no policy that exempts spamming in userspace. I intended to block the account as being likely an UPE, given that their first edit was a full, highly promotional page about a company, and then left it for uninvolved admins to review the block. If asked, I always accept the reviewing admin's decision unless, rarely, they have missed something like socking or previous malpractice. I apologise again for the error I made, although I can't help thinking it could have been sorted out on my talk page rather than through ANI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I frankly agree. This didn't need to be brought here. He made a mistake- apparently I made a mistake by asking him to confirm that he made a mistake(even though clicking unblock bring up a clear message "Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error") okay. We'll do better next time. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I realize that's for "accounts you control" but clearly there's some intention here that we need to consult with the blocking admin in general. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) 331dot (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @331dot: as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and reblocked them, that would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. SerialNumber54129 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • On a related note, I think we need to sit down with WP:PRECOCIOUS and WP:CIR and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs trying to do volunteer work seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. jp×g🗯️ 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • "we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Misplaced Pages for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —Cryptic 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I vandalized Misplaced Pages with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Misplaced Pages because some grace was offered to them when they were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that you should have been treated with suspicion and blocked immediately on your first edits, because who just knows wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? Very suspicious.
      "They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the possibility to become one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      There's a difference between vandalizing Misplaced Pages for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point Cryptic refers to). 331dot (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      (edit conflict)As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —Cryptic 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to GreenLipstickLesbian's collections of your bad judgement? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I fail to see how "331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined" is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged would could be over-pinging. CNC (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      CommunityNotesContributor By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      CommunityNotesContributor: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      @331dot @Significa liberdade. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. CNC (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. El Beeblerino 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once Jordan Peterson style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would WP:CLEANSTART, rendering my point somewhat moot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. CNC (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. I present JohnCWiesenthal as a counterexample. Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at IntelliStar which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For advertising of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at Misplaced Pages:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking

    • Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was effectively set incredibly low, exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. CNC (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. Secretlondon (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? CNC (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. Secretlondon (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. CNC (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by WP:ADMINACCT and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. El Beeblerino 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Or, better, My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. -- asilvering (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Beeblebrox probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially "The specifics of the example isn't the point,...". CNC (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 CNC (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a long time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic WP:RESPONSIBILITY WP:MORALITY. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per cause and effect and remaining WP:CONSCIOUS. CNC (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Misplaced Pages as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. Risker (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Looking through 331dot declining unblocks reveals quite a few instances where either 331dot or the blocking admin takes an extremely newbie-unfriendly approach:

    • User talk:Meruba ny has now been unblocked by Philknight, but the approach by 331dot was not very helpful or newbie-friendly
    • User talk:DustinBrett: no warnings, immediate indef block by User:Widr for a misguided edit (not vandalism, just auto-promo): no idea why a warning wasn't tried first
    • User talk:Djmartindus, no warning, immediate indef block by User:rsjaffe, reasonable unblock request, denied by 331dot. This is the apparently unforgiveable, no warnings needed edit.
    • User talk:PaulSem, I can understand their frustration, I don't see the "blatant spam" they were posting, they were posting references with relevant information, but these included commercial websites as well as neutral ones. I don't see any company they tried to promote, no spam text, ... just a helpful editor who hasn't yet given up on editing here despite a way too harsh block by User:HJ Mitchell and an unhelpful unblock decline by 331dot
    • User talk:Cryo Cavalry incorrect sock block, unblocked thanks to PhilKnight, but previous interactions with 331dot, including a declined unblock, were again rather unhelpful, just blindly believing that the block has to be correct

    These are all from this month, from spotchecking some of their declined unblocks (a number of other declines were perfectly allright). Fram (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    I blocked based on Misplaced Pages:SPAMNAME combined with promotional edit. Name represents a website that functions to generate income and the user posted a link to the site. Is that kind of block incorrect? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Name of website (blog) is name of actual person, DJ Martin Dus. Link they posted was informative and relevant. The reaction to this is not some gentle steering towards "perhaps better a new username" (dubious if that was even necessary) and "please don't post links to your own blog", but an immediate indef block, and a declined unblock with a request for basically a complete plan for their future editing career. Apparently their error was much more heinous than someone posting blatant vandalism, who gets 3 or 4 chances before being blocked, and first gets clear warnings that it will happen. Fram (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Rsjaffe it was well within the bounds of policy and reason but the name could be a stage name whuch changes the equation slightly. Ask 100 different admins, you'll get 100 different answers.
    I stand by my block of PaulSem based on the information I had at the time but my threshold for undoing my own block is essentially a coherent appeal or promise not to repeat the problem action so I've unblocked now I've seen that they appealed. That's not a criticism of 331dot because my standard for reversing another admin's action is much higher. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for the unblock, but I really don't see why that editor didn't just warrant some guidance, at worst warnings, for some of the links they included. I may well have missed it, but their latest edit added a good source, which you reverted, after which you blocked. Fram (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the edit wasn't promotional enough for you to even revert, it probably wasn't blatant enough to call for a block. Or to turn it around, this is like when I see another admin tag all of a user's creations as spam, or vandalism, or even attack pages instead of deleting them themselves; and after I delete the pages and go to deal with the user, I find that the same admin had already blocked. How can you be confident enough to indef a user while still being unsure enough about their content - the reason you blocked them - that you need confirmation from another admin? —Cryptic 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The lack of reversion was an error on my part. However, I do acknowledge that I had only seen the name as the name of a website, and not also as a stage name. I have been slow on reversing the block after seeing the objection raised here, because one of the lessons I learned from a previous block that I posted on this page requesting review, showed that acting too quickly on an objection can create havoc, when the objection — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Itself becomes controversial. (I am on flaky connection right now, sorry for the broken up message). Will unblock, revert edit, and discuss either user. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cryptic, I see things somewhat differently, and I am among the administrators who often block for promotional username/promotional editing and then tag the content, usually G11, for review by another administrator, under the principle that two heads are better than one. In my mind, it is a check on myself to help prevent me from becoming too stringent and if another administrator questions my tag or my block, that helps me adhere to community norms. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    So, what, you see a promotional page being made, figure it's bad enough to block the creator, but aren't sure it's worth deleting? What do you do if the deletion's declined? Leave the user blocked, even though what they wrote was acceptable? Unblock? How do you rationalize either of those outcomes as ok? —Cryptic 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cryptic, the answer is clear to me but I will spell it out for you. If another administator disagrees with my assessment that the content in question should be deleted (or that the editor should have been blocked), then that administator and I would have a conversation. That could lead to content being draftified instead of being deleted. It could lead to a hard block being converted to a soft block. It could result in me concluding that I misunderstood and unblocking with an apology. It would not result in me ignoring the situation and leaving a contradictory outcome unresolved. As I said, I believe that two heads are better than one and I do not recall any other admimstrator chastising me with, "you should have deleted that spam yourself!". Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Cullen328: Why not tag the page for deletion, then warn the user? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Significa liberdade, because I am an administator and overtly promotional usernames are not permitted and call for a block. And an account with an overtly promotional username combined with creation of overtly promotional content calls for a hard block. I do not engage in friendly negotiations with spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Cullen328: Apologies, on a re-read I realized you mentioned username+promo. I thought you were just talking about a new editor creating promotional pages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    And Cullen is of course correct by our current policies and practices. That's where I think the problem lies, not with individual admins but with the guidance provided to them, which I have been following for years myself. I do think spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia is going a bit far in many cases and we need to try warning and education as a tool of first resort, as we do with vandals, instead of jumping straight to a block. I am very willing to delete spam, but I have come to believe that the no-warning blocking is not really productive or fair. El Beeblerino 03:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The best solution might be the simplest one: we need some new blood dealing with blocks and unblocks. Either admins who work in other areas should pay some attention to this, or new admins with a newbie-advocate philosophy need to be given the tools to work on block appeals. ...any volunteers? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not an admin myself, but I'm always happy to help give advice to users making block appeals, and to make sure they're on the right track! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Significa liberdade is one of those newbie-advocate types who has taken up this work recently, and I've been on it as well. It needs as much new blood as it can get. It's also really helpful for non-admins who know their way around to help out the ones who have clearly misunderstood something (eg, someone blocked for copyright, a promo editor who needs to agree to abide by paid disclosure, etc). -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Happy to help. A. B. 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Help is surely needed, as the usual suspects just continue in the same vein, e.g. with User talk:NKabs03. That editor needed warnings and guidance, not an indef block and and a declined unblock. No idea why this was reverted, and while their addition was a promo link, it's hard to find fault with the reasoning from their edit summary. 5 Edits of which 2 were good and 3 promolinks but relevant and understandable = no warnings and indef block? Gee, I wonder why we have such a hard time finding new editors. Fram (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Are there deleted edits or something else I can't see here, there's nothing further in the filter log? User:Tanishksingh039 makes two edits on the 11th, gets warned (okay), makes no further edits, and gets blocked indef a full week later on the 18th by User:HJ Mitchell. Why??? Fram (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    There are no deleted contributions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically someone making a living by backlinking a website for a clientand not just someone who is ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Misplaced Pages's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. El Beeblerino 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check every subsequent edit manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Chaotic Enby, I think that's exactly the sort of thing @Vanamonde93 is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he shouldn't be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Novem Linguae: as the first technically minded admin I thought of, is this even within the realms of feasibility? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      watchlist this user's edits. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to WP:HOUNDING concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.
      Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful. A user script could be written that runs itself on pages such as recent changes, the watchlist, and article histories, and highlights edits by users that have been added to a wiki page containing a list of users to highlight. Or highlights edits by users who have been unblocked within the last month. So yeah, that's technically possible. WP:US/R is a good place to request user scripts if y'all decide to go that route. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

      watchlist this user's edits. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to WP:HOUNDING concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.

      Yep, which is why I thought limiting its availability to admins watchlisting users they personally unblocked could mitigate the WP:HOUNDING risks. Even more if it's limited to unblocks from the last, say, 30 days (although giving a specific timeframe might be an incentive for these editors to just wait it out, so a specific number of edits that will show up on the watchlist might be better).For your second point, a script could very much be feasible. I think there's a way to retrieve a user's logs by script to check the date of their last unblock, and from there it's just like an admin/etc. highlighter script. I might do it actually, if I find the time for it (and everyone, feel free to remind me if it looks like I'm forgetting!) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      For reference, see this old community wishlist entry. Graham87 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Examples: HJ Mitchell

    @HJ Mitchell:, per WP:ADMINACCT, can you please explain why you blocked User:Tanishksingh039 despite there being no edits between the warning they received for their first two edits, and your block a week later? Fram (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    HJMitchell addresses some thinking behind the block in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, but the same happens with other editors as well. User:8neshebraWright8, warned on 11 December, one edit (not constructive but not problematic either) to their own user page the same day, suddenly blocked a week later? Nothing in the filter log, no deleted pages. If it was a sock, an indication in the block log would help. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    That one was reported to AIV (which is where most of my blocks come from) late last night. I misread the timestamps and hadn't realised they were a week old but didn't see anything to be gained by unblocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • User:Anushka Sweety Shetty: none of their edits after their one vandalism warning were reverted, they seemed like a good faith editor, but still you indef blocked them. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Except they weren't, after the warning they removed or merged sections once and then proceeded to add (at first glance acceptable) sources to the same article. They were a good faith editor trying to improve an article, probably making errors along the way. Fram (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @HJ Mitchell, could you please have another look at this block? – bradv 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Bradv (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Why is this here and not on the user's talk page? If you have a concern with an individual user, as is the case here, you should first try to resolve your issues with the individual user. That's step one of dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      I agree. I think this whole section should be closed and discussion moved there.
      Somehow, I don't think that: "But we think our torches and pitchforks will be more effective here", is (or should be) a valid reason to skip steps in WP:DR in this case. - and that's about as much AGF as I think I can give in this instance. Regardless of initial intent, this is starting to come across as a kangaroo court. The appearance of which would seem to be undermining whatever goals that those concerned may have. - jc37 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      To those concerned, it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue. That is, in itself, a valid perspective. Class-borne exasperation is not itself collective discrimination or punishment.
      If you are implying this is shaping up to be a witch hunt, I have yet to see instances of magical thinking or confessions produced under torture. Instead, I see reasonable evidence for users' interrelated, reasonable concerns. Are people on WPO rude? Yes, and I see no bad faith in their incivility here. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Not seen as magical thinking or torture? Welcome to WP:AN : )
      And your comments do not address that this should have been - and should be - carried out on the admin's talk page, as Risker noted. - jc37 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Remsense's comment directly addressed that, e.g. it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue and interrelated, reasonable concerns. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Looks at the thread title ("Examples: HJ Mitchell"), and your and their comments. Uh huh, sure. Care to try again? - jc37 23:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Remsense's comment directly addressed whether this should be carried out on the admin's talk page, by using words such as not ... individualized and interrelated. Levivich (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Endorse most blocks; unblock Anushka Sweety Shetty. Procedurally, the OP should have discussed on talk with the user directly first; but setting that aside. For the first example, these are obviously low quality spam external links. All blocks are reversible given a block appeal. This is clearly bread and butter admin blocking and within discretion, and helps keep the quality of the encyclopedia high that we use discretion to quickly dispatch obvious troublemakers and spammers. The blocking policy is not a strict legal document, but a set of guidelines. The norms and practices should be followed, but not religiously. This seems like a good example where the logic is sound and where the action can be reversed easily if someone legit gets hit by a block, but it seems to me that this is just promotional spam. As to the second block, the account was evidently a vandalism-only account. We don't require warnings for this, AFAIK. Finally, I do think that Anushka Sweety Shetty was accidentally mis-tagged as vandalism, and should be unblocked unless there's a good reason that I don't understand. However, one mistake is not a big deal and can be easily reversed. Andre🚐 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Examples: 331dot

    @331dot: per Wp:ADMINACCT, can you please explain why you declined the unblock of good faith editor User:PaulSem? It seems that they needed guidance, not blocking in the first place, and certainly not a declined unblock with a rather unfriendly, unhelpful message. Fram (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what it was that was "unfriendly" about my message. I try to be matter of fact and succinct, perhaps that comes across as unfriendly, but I'm not trying to be. As the blocking admin said when they removed the block, "we don't link to sites that sell things". That's spam. I was looking for some understanding of that point. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, but we've had a massive backlog most of this year and I was trying to keep it down. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • "we don't link to sites that sell things" except that we do this all the time of course. This was very clearly a good faith editor (their last edit before the block was this), not some editor interested in adding spam. Your reply "You were posting blatant spam, the issue is not poor references." was clearly wrong, and the editor just needed an explanation of why something like this is not an acceptable source, even if it was added to be helpful and not as "blatant spam". Trying to keep down a backlog is not an excuse to deny good-faith editors their chance to edit and improve along the way because you don't have the time to actually look at what happened. Fram (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      If you're trying to offend me, it's working. I did look at what happened. Say you disagree, say I was wrong, fine. If you want the perfect admin, that's not me. But don't tell me I did things that I didn't do. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      So you looked at what happened, and still called this "blatant spam" and sufficient to decline an unblock? Then we are approaching WP:RECALL territory, as you seem to be having too many of these situations. I also linked above to User talk:Cryo Cavalry, who was incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry. I presume you looked into what happened when you declined the unblock with "I think that the reason for the block is correct. " or then continued to be extremely unhelpful by countering "If you could please check my edit history, you would see that I haven't done anything malicious." with "Your making edits is in and of itself malicious as you are evading blocks." They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment. Fram (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Please tell me what the acceptable level of mistakes is so I know never to make too many. I never said anyone wasn't sincere. I didn't have access to all the information. You are assigning motives to me that I simply don't have and I don't know why you, a former admin, have it out for me. Merry Christmas. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      @331dot Please familiarize yourself with WP:BATTLEGROUND. 78.173.128.237 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      I am very familiar with it, thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      I wasn't rude. I categorically, totally, in the strongest terms, reject that claim. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Okay, let's leave the rudeness matter to the side for a while. Tone is hard to convey on the internet. Let's also not accuse other editors of having it out for anybody, because when in the history of Misplaced Pages has that ever gone well?Just to try and steer things back on course, @331dot, could you explain why you chose not to accept the unblock requests I posted a few days ago? And the others that Fram posted? I think understanding what your reasoning was when declining these unblocks, especially those of users such as Pbnjb1 and Cwootten13, will be useful for everybody. Mistakes are fine, but, and as an admin who monitors the unblock queue, you know this better than most, what other people want to see is genuine reflection and understanding. What went wrong in these, and what's going to happen differently next time? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'm sorry but it's hard to be told I'm doing things that I'm not doing.
      • 2023-11-03 The user said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices. I would like to continue editing Misplaced Pages and request to be unblocked." They said they hadn't reviewed policies yet, and they didn't say what edits they wished to make, both of which would indicate their understanding of the reasons for the block. Quite often people say they understand when they actually don't. Yes, blocks are cheap, but trying to avoid repeat blocks is good both for the appellant and us. Nothing nefarious, nothing rude. Happy to hear what specifically I should have done differently.
      • 2024-06-01 I said "If you lose track of which account you are using, you should stick to a single account." I didn't say it was an inappropriate use. They also incorrectly said a personal attack was made against them.
      I'm happy to discuss other things with you but I fear drawing this discussion out more than it already is. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Okay. Here we go.
      You selectively quoted Pbnjb1 there - which, I mean, I selectively quoted you so I can't get too mad. But they also wrote I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.
      They very obviously demonstrated that they understood the relevant policies and had read them. How much clearer did you want them to be....? Please, elaborate
      Additionally, I don't think anybody who has seen that block has understood why it was made, because we don't do instant 4im warnings and indefs for newbies adding redcats. I don't know why you've expecting a new user to have to have understood something seasoned admins and editors are scratching their heads over. I concur with you about repeat blocks- they're bad for everybody's moral. But accusing other users of not having read policies when they tell you information they could have only learnt by reading the policy? I don't know what to say here.
      For the next decline- you selectively quoted yourself. this makes it seem like you are multiple people. That's inappropriate use. You did accuse them of inappropriately using multiple accounts. Again, I don't know what to say. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Well, they said they read it and then said they didn't- what should I believe? A contradiction would suggest they didn't- but okay, I screwed up.
      I was trying to tell them why people thought they were using them inappropriately. I guess I failed at that. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      "then said they didn't" Please, back this up with a quote, because they didn't say they hadn't read the policies and guidelines. They said they would look at the Teahouse to get a better understanding. There was no contradiction. They demonstrated an understanding of the policies in the areas they'd been making mistakes in, and said they would ask for help in areas they didn't understand yet. But, because that was in the past, let's say you came across the exact same situation today. What would you do?
      I'll come back to the Cwooten13 block at a later date, just so we don't start spiraling off out of control. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      They said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices"- which would suggest they hadn't yet. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      ....no? A better understanding != hasn't read something yet. In fact, the use of the comparative adjective "better" implies that they did read it, and they did understand it. Maybe not completely, but very few people understand our policies and guidelines completely, and especially not when they are a bran-new editor.
      And you didn't answer my question. Let's say you see that exact same situation again. What would you do? 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I would unblock them. I think this was just a difference in wording interpretation- which I'm happy to correct when pointed out to me. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      So, an editor is incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry, protests his innocence, and you simply dismiss his protests without any indication why. They then point to their record of good contributions, and you again dismiss this completely and reassert that they were editing maliciously, but you weren't rude? "I didn't have access to all the information." In the first of these two blocks, you did have access to all the information, but still denied the unblock and called it blatant spam. In the second case, you didn't have all the information, but still proceeded to completely reject any possibility that the editor was right and summarily dismissed them. The issue is not "the acceptable level of mistakes" but what you do when those mistakes are pointed out. Fram (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I can't do anything about mistakes if you don't tell me what they are. I'm always willing to change and adjust. I've never denied this. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      ??? Seriously? Perhaps reread this whole discussion top to bottom, it lists enough of your mistakes. Or if that's too much to ask, just reread my messages from today. Fram (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I mean before now. "Hey, 331dot, just a friendly question asking why you did X thing when I noticed Y thing was the case". 331dot (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      So no actual reply to my post then. You claim to be willing to change and adjust, but give no indication that you understand what you did wrong. Fram (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      "They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment." I did, but unsurprisingly many socks deny being socks. Do I get that wrong sometimes? Yes. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      The editor involved (nor anyone else) had any indication that you took their unblock request and explanation in any way serious, you gave no explanation at all, leaving the editor rather desperate: "Please, could you explain to me how this conclusion has been reached?", no answer. Fram (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I have other things to do, and by the time I noticed that, someone else(a checkuser) had already engaged with them. I didn't want to pile on especially whem someone with more information was interacting with them. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      But it should never have come to that in the first place, if you had at the very least explained your reasons for not believing them at all in either your unblock decline or in your follow-up at the latest. Fram (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      This is actually quite illustrative. We have a situation where several people are telling you that you made mistakes and they're discussing what should be done. This seems to have come almost out of nowhere and you wish you had been given a heads up before it came to this. You're not sure exactly why it is that they're approaching things this way, and even though you're expressing that you're acting in good faith, it feels like there's nothing you can say that would satisfy them. If you're getting frustrated, that's an entirely understandable response and I don't blame you. Imagine the frustration when you're told that I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. doesn't cut it and your appeal is denied. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I see what you're trying to do here. I get it. You say it "doesn't cut it" but don't tell me why. I do tell people why or at least attempt to. We all see things differently and have different perspectives, so maybe I don't always succeed. But I try. I'm not the perfect admin certain people seem to want me to be. But turn it around and try to see what I'm saying. I'm not acting nefariously, I'm not a terrible person. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I don't believe you intend to cause harm. I've never done unblocking (obviously), and I imagine it's one of the more difficult admin tasks. My point is that there are parallels in terms of asking for assumptions of good faith, only that the newer editors don't always know how to express that. My suggestion, acknowledging again I've only been involved as an observer? Once a blocked editor tries to express good faith, the community as a whole should be more willing to help them express that. This is a ultimately a systematic problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I agree with that, but that means more discussion, not less, and this thread was created because of a perception that "several admins" were "just standing by interrogating a user". It's my personal opinion, from handling and watching these over the past couple months, that repeated, snap declines are much more harmful than these longer conversations. -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Since this has devolved into focusing on single administrator's actions, I will ask that you either split this into a new discussion, move this to that admin's talk page, or collapse it as not to distract from what was supposed to be a broader discussion. Isabelle Belato 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I've turned it into subsections Fram (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      This discussion should probably be moved into relevant subsection. CNC (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • This makes me curious, probably a good fit for the idea lab for further workshopping, but would it be an interesting idea to have a board specifically for WP:ADMINACCT questions? From what I've seen, asking on the talk page of the editor or the admin themselves gives pretty low visibility to the question and often isn't conducive to further discussion, or sometimes to getting a clear answer at all, while something like AN or ANI might be too direct or accusatory for a simple question. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Perhaps the scope of WP:AARV could be expanded to include such questions? 331dot (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      It could be, although AARV carries the presumption that the action was incorrect and should be up to debate to endorse/overturn, rather than a centralized place to simply ask WP:ADMINACCT questions with more transparency than the admin's talk page (where things like WP:OWNTALK apply). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    It's difficult to see how other admins deal with unblock requests, as only open requests are easily findable. Looking at the open requests, I see User talk:TagKnife, which seems from what I can see onwiki a very weird block, but as it is based on an UTRS ticket I can't judge it completely. Still, if it was paid editing the block seems to have come 6 months after the fact, not at a time the paid editing was happening (if it ever happened), so why a block and not a warning/discussion? Fram (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Because it was a Terms of Use violation involving UPE. I cannot say any more without violating policy and documents that I have signed. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? Fram (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, I don't really understand under what circumstances that could be true, but I guess I have to accept it. Fram (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Fram (and others), it is not a UTRS ticket, it is a WP:VRT ticket (presumably a WP:COIVRT ticket). People who are given access to the queue sign the ANPDP (which is the same NDA signed by editors with CUOS). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Fram I'm genuinely curious. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the ticket showed definitive evidence of UPE (because in my estimation as someone who can see the ticket, it did), do you think this is still a bad block in the way you have concerns about other spam blocks where the editor has stopped editing? I didn't become an admin to block people (I am a bit abashed I'm up to 175 blocks in my ~5 years as an admin) but I am closely following this discussion to get my own sense of community consensus about these matters. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the UPE is about the deleted article, then yes, I consider it a bad block. If there is more to it, which doesn't show up in the edits, log, and filter log, then it may of course be a perfectly acceptable block. But there is, as far as I know, no reason to automatically give an indef block for UPE instead of warning editors, certainly when like here they have made many other edits which seem uncontroversial, and when the paid editing is months in the past and not repeated after the article was deleted. Fram (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    @331dot: it turns out you were perfectly correct with this block, and at the same time not allowed by policy to convincingly explain it, which must be frustrating. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to the others who took a look at this one. I'll not bother you about similar ticket-based blocks in the future, as it is clear that I can't independently assess them, the one example I used was a perfect block, and you may not explain it in any detail anyway. Fram (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    This was closed with the comment "Withdrawn by OP as explanation was deemed suitable. If anyone wants to harangue the multitudes, you may revert my close. Andre🚐 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)" but this is incorrect. While the second case was convincingly explained, the User talk:PaulSem case was not withdrawn and was a bad block and bad declined unblocked. Fram (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Request for closure review

    I would be grateful for a review of the decision to close the discussion at Talk:You Like It Darker in favour of merging the article Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker".

    The proposal to merge was raised by Voorts on 30 May 2024, the day after the article was created, at which point the article looked like this. Subsequently, there were three responses, two (including myself) against merging and one for merging (not including Voorts' "vote" as nominator). The final "vote" was cast on 3 June, at which point the article looked like this. The discussion was subsequently dormant for a few months. On 1 October 2024, AirshipJungleman29 opted not to close the discussion. On 27 October 2024, Compassionate727 performed a non-admin closure on the proposal to merge in favour of merging, at which point the article looked like this.

    I subsequently raised this with Compassionate727 who declined to revise their decision (entirely within their rights).

    I am therefore bringing this to the noticeboard to respectfully request a review of the decision to close in favour of merging. The main points I would flag are:

    • I think the verdict that there was a "rough consensus to merge" is questionable.
    • The proposal to merge, and subsequent discussion, date from immediately after the article's creation and while the article was in the process of being expanded and improved. The latest vote for merging is from 31 May 2024, and the article has been significantly expanded since then. My view would be that, in light of the changes made to the article since 31 May, it would be reasonable to revisit the matter to consider if any of the arguments in favour of merging have been satisfactorily addressed. In effect, the decision to merge does not give weight to any improvements to the article since May 2024.
    • On a practical level, it is unclear how the article could realistically be merged into You Like It Darker without running into WP:UNDUE or purging the vast majority of content. The article has not been merged over two months following the closure.

    If the settled view of the community is to merge the articles on the basis of the discussion in May-June then I will of course accept that, but on this occasion I would respectfully ask that some more consideration be given as to the best course of action. Thank you. McPhail (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    Overturn and reopen Not a single comment was made after the request was posted to WP:PAM, and, excluding the nom's !vote, there is one proponent of the merge, who cited a concern that appears to have been addressed. There should be further discussion here. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Endorse: The sources added after the merge proposal opened are all about the book. The notability of the book cannot be inherited by the short story. Until there are several independent, reliable sources that establish the story is notable, this should be merged. The due weight issue can be resolved by cutting out the extensive plot summary and summarizing the reviews within the broader context of the book itself. Why not work on getting the book article completed instead of myopically focusing on one short story? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    Overturn and Reopen. There's no consensus to do anything there, let alone merge. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Just commenting, because I didn't receive the expected notification, that I am aware of this discussion. I may respond in substance later. —Compassionate727  00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Okay, I had to take some time to remind myself of why I handled this how I did. Basically, because it was proposed for merging because of notability concerns rather than anything in WP:MERGEREASON, I treated this discussion as an AfD in another venue. The way AfD works, in practice, is that the subject is presumed to not be notable until it is demonstrated that it is—which, if the subject is indeed notable, is rarely difficult to do. As multiple participants observed, no evidence was provided at any point in the discussion that this short story meets the general notability guideline; indeed, opponents of the merge didn't even bother trying to argue that it does. Instead, they tried to fall back on WP:NBOOK#5, but again, they failed to provide any evidence that King's corpus is a common subject of academic study, and Οἶδα provided a reasonable argument that it probably isn't. The notability of the story not being demonstrated, I found a consensus to not retain the article, which in this case meant merging.I would find it idiosyncratic for the result to be overturned to no consensus because of the discussion's low participation, which is entirely characteristic of merge discussions. I would find it vexing if my closure was merely vacated and the discussion reopened, as participants here are currently suggesting, because unless they want to join the discussion, doing so is quite unlikely to actually garner additional participation and will instead merely stall the consensus-building process. In any case, with notability still not being demonstrated, I'm guessing that a "no consensus" outcome will merely cause the conversation to move to AfD, where I expect the article will be deleted unless new evidence emerges. —Compassionate727  23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Overturn and reopen per my original reasoning as mentioned above (I didn't get a ping though) and strongly echoing Black Kite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Overturn. I don't believe this discussion has meaningful consensus, and as someone who works on literary topics it is a somewhat frustrating discussion to read. First, the story is notable: Stephen King is a literary giant, and therefore his publications meet WP:BOOKCRIT No. 5. Second, the notability is somewhat secondary; the real question for a merge discussion is whether a standalone page is appropriate. We routinely treat notable topics as part of a larger coherent article because that serves a reader better, and sometimes because that is how the sources treat them. The questions that needed to be answered are whether there is sufficient content to justify a standalone page, and whether a merger would create due weight issues. At a brief glance the answers to those questions are "yes" and "yes", but more to the point, those questions weren't examined in any depth. Honestly, I think this is a borderline case where either outcome could be made work with good editing (the collection article could be expanded, such that a merger wouldn't swamp it). Finally, the discussion had four participants, evenly split on the question. Absent a reason to completely discard one set of opinions - and I don't see such a reason - I don't see grounds to close this with consensus in favor of anything. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Derogatory comments and sockpuppetry

    Staler than a stale thing; nothing to do here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Administrators' Please block the users Special:Contributions/2409:408C:AE9C:9877:9A5E:3256:72B3:8EAB and Special:Contributions/2409:40F2:3B:B5A:44E2:8FF:FE64:729E for their disruptions and abusive edits on page: Mohan Bhagwat. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    These edits are from over a month ago. There is no point in blocking these /64 at this moment. Isabelle Belato 15:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Isabelle Belato okay, I will keep an eye on this user. Will let the admins know in the future if they continue to disrupt. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request removing creation block at Alpha Beta Chi

    Protection removed from Alpha Beta Chi. Liz 05:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Alpha Beta Chi was repeatedly recreated in 2008 after a deletion for Copyvio back in 2007 and was thus Creation Blocked. On Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities after some discussion, we believe we have found sufficient references for creation of the page. On contacting an available administrator, they indicated that I should ask here. thank you.Naraht (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    If an editor wants to create this in good faith then I don't see why not, but I must say that I find this whole "Greek letter" thing extremely childish, so I certainly won't be editing the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    The article was SALTed for lack of a credible claim of significance under A7, not for persistent copyright violation. I don't think a Senate resolution and a newspaper article from 1942 – which are the only two sources cited in the WikiProject discussion – meet WP:NORG. I personally won't un-SALT the page until I'm satisfied that this is actually notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hello, Naraht,
    I'm not sure why you were advised to come here to WP:AN, the proper place to request a change in protection for a page title is Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Secondly, you're best bet is to write a draft article and submit it to WP:AFC, if it is approved, then protection can be lowered so the article can be moved from Draft space to main space. Liz 22:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Naraht: I've undeleted it for you; salting wasn't intended to prevent a soild editor from creating an article in 2024; it was being recreated in 2007-2008 in unuseful ways. Because of Voorts' concern, Liz's idea of drafting it in draft space first, until you have all your ducks in a row, is a good one. But you've been here forever, I defer to however you want to handle it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I didn't notice that Naraht had been an editor since 2005. Liz 03:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to Shavian alphabet

    REASON: It's directly mentioned in the article thus it's already immediately obvious. And because it uses characters outside the BMP, I can't create it myself so... User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑩𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 already exists. Not sure about the dot in front of it? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    From the article.

    There are no separate uppercase or lowercase letters as in the Latin script; instead of using capitalization to mark proper nouns, a "namer-dot" (·) is placed before a name. Sentences are typically not started with a namer-dot, unless it is otherwise called for. All other punctuation and word spacing is similar to conventional orthography.

    Seems appropriate for the forced capitalization of the wikipedia article, but I could see that going either way.Naraht (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Call for decisive admins to clear backlog

    So, there have been persistent backlogs at Category:Requests for unblock. I had not worked the area in a while, and I assumed it was simply so understaffed that appeals weren't even being looked at. What I have found instead is that, in quite a number of cases, between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the exact edits they would make. I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock.

    Now, I don't agree with that approach as most of these appeals are from fairly new users and I was under the impression we were supposed to assume good faith and give second chances, not act like every unblock appeal was the trial of the century, and there is some terrible risk to just finding out if they can actually behave if unblocked. However, the real problem here is that I'm seeing these long discussions, but then the reviewing admins don't do anything. Even after asking the user to jump through all these hoops, they do not even get the courtesy of closure to their case.

    So, I'm asking, pleading really, for admins who find themselves able to come to a conclusion and act on it to pleas help with this backlog.

    I'm not looking to have a long discussion here about it, I'm asking for help dealing with it as it seems fairly out-of-control. El Beeblerino 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with that characterization more. In some cases (and you didn't name me but you clearly include me) I have already reviewed and I'm not supposed to review again. I also have other things to do. And sometimes I forget. Nothing nefarious like its being made out to be. And yes, I don't want people to post here saying "that 331dot's wasting our time unblocking all these people who shouldn't be!". Is that so unreasonable?
    AGF does not mean accepting things on blind faith. WP:GFISNOT; Trust, but verify. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't believe I said or implied it was anything nefarious, as I don't think it is. I don't agree with the prolonged quizzes and goalpost moving I'm seeing in some of these requests, that's true, and sure, some of that is you but it isn't just you. It seems to me that we have an issue here exactly because too few admins are working in this area, and that group has developed their own version of "how it's supposed to work" that I do not think jives with what the community expects. El Beeblerino 01:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    What the community expects, or what you expect?
    I'm not being disagreeable here. You and I have been around a long time and I think it's safe to say we've seen a lot of blocks and unblocks happen, and many discussed here and elsewhere. In my estimation, there's no consensus on how unblocking should be treated, because it's relying on admin discretion on a case by case basis. And questioning the blocked user to get more info - rather than ignoring and leaving them blocked! - was always seen as more merciful and giving the opportunity for AGF. We always have said that we as a community believe in the opportunity for redemption here. But not at the expense of disruption to the project. (See also Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Unblock_requests, especially the first line.)
    All that said, concerning one of your comments, if an admin is going on vacation, a wiki-break, or whatever, then out of courtesy, they should note here that they are dropping certain tasks (like an unblock review) so that there is less confusion, and someone else can pick up the ball. - jc37 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do second the request for help, though. Thank you in advance. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have some hypotheticals in response to your implication that current admins staffing RFU are acting unreasonably:
    • between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the exact edits they would make. SpamEditor is blocked for spamming links to their small business. They request an unblock, with the statement: "Sorry I just want to edit Misplaced Pages productively, I won't do it again". AdminUnblocker uses the {{2nd chance}} template. SE complies with that template after two weeks, and submits an article edit. AU and a couple of other admins comment on it. BlockingAdmin is consulted per the blocking policy, but takes a week or so to respond because they're on vacation.
    • I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock. MeanEditor is blocked for making personal attacks based on three or four diffs and without any preceding discussion or AN/I report. ME requests to be unblocked, stating that they won't make personal attacks ever again, and sincerely apologizing for their conduct. While reviewing the unblock request, AU looks at ME's edit history and sees that ME had also regularly added unsourced information to articles. AU asks ME to explain what WP:V requires and to provide an example of a reliable source. After a back and forth, ME passes the exercise and is unblocked. Now, assume AU hadn't asked those questions and instead unblockes ME based solely on the sincerity of the apology. The next day, ME inserts unsourced information into several articles, continues after a final warning, and is indef'd.
    voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • We can also add to the record that Beeblerox unblocked Jisshu, who had been blocked for copyright violations. In the meantime, Jisshu had been contributing to Simple Misplaced Pages... where many of their edits consisted of close paraphrasing. As documented here, the editor immediately returned to adding copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages and has been reblocked. Although I'm all for clearing the backlog, it's also important not to be sloppy about it. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I second this. I want to unblock people, but I also don't want to see them back, both for them(so they become good contributors) and for us(so we don't waste more time dealing with repeat appellants). Yes, blocks are cheap, and often WP:ROPE is good, but not always. I also am aware of no policy that says only the stated/logged issue can be dealt with and nothing else, especially in the face of clear evidence. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Your "clear evidence" is too often a brand new editor who was blocked way too harshly instead of being warned, and then gets their unblock declined because they didn't fully understand the block (how could they?). The previous discussion included plenty of recent such episodes where you were involved (together with others). I don't get why blatant vandalism gets 4 warnings, but people adding helpful links to informative but unacceptable sources (their own blog, a commercial site they don't seem to be affiliated with) get an indef block without a warning and then a very unhelpful treatment when they ask for an unblock. Fram (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I'm trying to balance being helpful with avoiding the user telling me what I want to hear(giving them the information I'm looking for). I provide help when specifically asked. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      add to the record? What record? The record of giving people a second chance and then being disappointed but not particularly surprised when they squander it? As far as I'm concerned that's how this is supposed to work. Simple unblock requests from newer users making a reasonable request for a second chance don't require a committee to deal with them. El Beeblerino 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      No, El Beeblerino. It is a follow-up on 331dot's wording of I also want it on the record, which is a phrase. (I believe that it is likely you knew that question was false when you replied, but on the off chance you didn't.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      But this was an editor who hadn't learned they were about to squander it! Did you think they were lying when they said they understood what paraphrasing was? If yes, why unblock? If no, why set them up for failure like this? -- asilvering (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      You asked them several questions and they gave at least semi-reasonable replies. They admitted they had copied material word-for word and said they would paraphrase in the future. You declined to action the report after all that, saying that someone needed to check their edits on another project for copyvios.

      I read the appeal and the subsequent conversation and came to my own decision, which was different from yours. That's how it goes. It isn't personal, I just did not see it exactly the same as you did, and since you explicitly said you would not decline the request I took the action I thought was appropriate. I did not and do not see this as overriding your decision, but equally I do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do.

      It turns out they didn't understand any of it and actually acted even more clueless than they had before the block, and were swiftly reblocked for it. I've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself, and added my own comments about how their behavior post-unblock was terrible and clueless. All we can do is try and educate newbies, which you tried to do. Some people are just unteachable, that's just the sad truth of it and I feel at this point that this is a CIR case.

      I think we have similar basic goals in mind, we want newbies to be given a chance, but your approach with the quizzes is simply not how I approach things. That's ok, we need diversity of opinion and approach in these areas.

      As far as I am concerned, this specific matter has already been resolved. El Beeblerino 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Honestly I suspect that exactly this reaction is what's actually going on here: admins are reluctant to unblock people for the same reason governors are unwilling to pardon people, because if they let someone edit and they do something bad again people will rightly-or-wrongly now blame the unblocking admin for it. Loki (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      What I do is add an event to my calendar so that I get a daily email reminder to check the unblocked person's contribs. I typically have several of these happening. This system gives the opportunity to give timely feedback if they are still not getting it, or to reblock if necessary. Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Diannaa (and others): may I take a moment to recommend User:SD0001/W-Ping.js which lets you create reminders onwiki which then appear on your watchlist. You can even "snooze" them once they appear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Sob story About a year ago, I decisively tackled CAT:UNBLOCK. It was exhausting. It was disheartening. I felt constant fear of making a mistake. That fear got worse when many of those I unblocked resumed disruption and were reblocked. The sense of achievement from the few successful unblocks was not enough to overcome the sense of stupidity I felt from the reblocks. I gave up. @Beeblebrox:, you have renewed my willingness to make decisive (if high-risk) unblocks. @Tamzin, JBW, and Asilvering:, are you with me?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's weird, because recently this page has made me want to hand back my barely-unwrapped mop. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @DoubleGrazing: Don't get discouraged. Remember it is a learning and relearning experience. Be open to feedback and adjust your focus and methodology as needed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm in a similar position. I waded in to CAT:UNBLOCK some time ago to try and help clear the backlog and pretty much every case I looked at was seemingly already being reviewed by other admins. Despite the volume of requests in there, I found very few "virgin" requests where I could pop in and make a quick decision without overriding anyone but the blocking admin.
    I agree with @Beeblebrox, we need to stop the protracted discussions. If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. If you're not sure, err on the side of assuming good faith; their edits can always be rolled back and they can be reblocked if necessary.
    Above all, let's not beat each other up if we make a mistake on that front. Assuming good faith is one of our central pillars and nobody should be lambasted or made to feel stupid for doing so. WaggersTALK 14:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. Why is this better than having a dialogue, answering questions, and educating the editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Two reasons. First, with limited admin resources, that time-consuming approach just isn't feasible if we want to actually get the backlog down. Second, as @Beeblebrox has pointed out, it often turns the unblock request into something closer to what RfA has become, and none of us want that. WaggersTALK 11:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, outside of the context of this thread, my answer is, of course, "you know my philosophy, you know I'm with you". I believe very firmly in treating people with kindness, collegiality, and above all, patience. That's precisely why I have been engaging at some length with blocked editors. Given the context of this thread, it appears that "decisive" means "with minimal discussion or delay". I've already watched one editor I had been interacting with get unblocked without any verification that they understood what was expected of them; that editor was so excited to be unblocked, immediately connected with another interested editor in the topic area... and was reblocked. I don't think that was kind, collegial, or patient, and I don't think it was just, either. If that's what being decisive is, I don't want any part of it; it's heartbreaking. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) I'll gladly endorse second-chance unblocks that lead to disruption, if it means we can avoid reaffirmed blocks that prevent good faith contributors from joining Misplaced Pages. It's the difference between short-term disruption on a few pages versus potentially years of contributions lost. I don't object to talking to the blocked editor first to make sure the concerns are addressed, but the admin should go in looking for reasons to unblock rather than the other way around. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    To editor Thebiguglyalien: Wait. You endorse unblocks that lead to disruption? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm simply describing WP:ROPE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    😵 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    You 😵, @Deepfriedokra, but when it comes to low-stakes obvious vandalism and so on, I think this is fine, so long as the unblocking editor keeps an eye on the next few contributions to see whether the rope got used in the, uh, traditional manner. People who replace the content of an article with "pee pee poo poo" know what they're doing. I had gotten the impression from my early lurking at unblocks that this was unacceptable, sighed about the death of WP:ROPE, and resolved to bring it up once I had more unblocks experience. Since then I've only seen fit to apply it in cases where the block is quite old already, so it didn't seem like much of an experiment (and indeed, no noose-takers), and one other case with other mitigating concerns (I was immediately snarked at for this one, but so far, still no noose, just a slow-moving cat-and-mouse game I don't know what to make of yet). -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    ROPE itself says that sometimes these discussions are appropriate: Sometimes those prolonged unblock discussions produce real results in educating the blocked user about why they were blocked and helping them to edit productively in the future. I've made ROPE unblocks, but I've also made unblocks where I've had a discussion with the editor. By ROPE's own terms, whether to do one or the other is within an admin's discretion. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed. I've done both as well. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    And I'm fine with that, as long as we're more forgiving to admins who make bad unblocks as opposed to admins who make bad blocks or are too quick to dismiss unblock requests by editors who don't know "the game". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    If Beeb had asked the admins involved instead of bringing this to AN, I think you would have seen answers like @asilvering's. This idea that people staffing CAT:UNBLOCK are looking not to unblock people appears to be coming from WPO editors assuming bad faith. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    That thread in particular has some extremely funny things to say about me. Recommended reading, really. -- asilvering (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm always amused when someone implies that I am under mind control from WPO. I assure you that I am quite capable of making my own decisions. Where the initial alarm bell went off is not relevant, I, myself, looking much further than the specific cases mentioned there, found what I believe to be a serious systemic problem in the unblocking process. I don't believe I said anywhere that the regulars in this area are looking not to unblock people, I said too many requests were being discussed at length and then never closed, whether as an accept or a decline. That's not acceptable. What we need here, as I very clearly stated when opening this thread, is more admins working this area and more willingness to just make an up-or-down call on unblock requests. El Beeblerino 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    "looking not to unblock people" etc. was in response to alien's point, not yours. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    All this "that part of my comment was directed elsewhere even though the other part was clearly directed at you" is getting farcical. If anyone wants to help out with the damn backlog please jump right in. That was the point here. It's down to fifty-eight items right now, which is bad but not as bad as it has been some days. El Beeblerino 00:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Beebs, you could save us all some time if you'd just tell us which users Wikipediocracy thinks were improperly blocked today. I'm a little exasperated myself lately at some blocks that have been ignoring the assume good faith guideline especially with respect to new users, and I'd be happy to look into some but I'm not going to waste my time sorting through the drivel over there on the off chance that there might be a helpful comment. Ivanvector (/Edits) 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      How nice to see locations of the targeted admins being brought up on the first page. CMD (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Ivanvector:I have responded to one or two that were discussed over there, but I've mostly just been scrolling through the list and just picking them at random. I've found plenty that just needed someone to take action that way.
      I admit I shy away from the CU blocks. I know those were moved back to largely being reviewed by the community but I'm not actually sure how we're supposed to actually do that. El Beeblerino 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      And also starting threads here specifically about the admins and their specific actions that are being discussed there by people who are banned here. I'm not going to harp on this because I happen to be roughly on the same page, but do mind WP:BMB and WP:PROXYING. Regarding checkuser: I'm not sure what you mean by "moved back to the community" - all a CU block indicates is that private information is involved in the block decision, and for that reason the community shouldn't be reviewing CU blocks at all. Likewise checkusers shouldn't be flagging blocks for no reason. But if a CU has already reviewed the block, it's supposed to be good to go for regular reviews by admins or the community; I'm trying to be more explicit about that in the blocks that I review, if I don't just close the appeal myself. And like I said below: if you come across an unblock that's sitting idle because it's waiting on a checkuser, try flagging it with {{checkuser needed}} so that the page gets listed in the table at WP:SPI. Stuff listed there gets the fastest attention. I know you probably already know all of this, but I'm saying it anyway for everyone's benefit who might not. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Beeblebrox what's been changed has been CU blocks basically being appealable only to arbcom to being able to handled onwiki by any CU in most circumstances (and/or a CU removing the CU part of the bloack because there is no socking going on and letting an admin handle other issues that contributed to a block). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      Ah. I hadn't worked this area in a while and I think I was on a break when that change was made, so I kind of missed the finer points. El Beeblerino 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    The unblock log would probably be shorter if some admins weren't so trigger happy. The other discussion here at AN contains quite a few examples of editors who shouldn't have been blocked so swiftly, and in the current unblock queue I see e.g. user:Pampanininoam, who needed an explanation, not a block. Fram (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Checkuser blocks The blocks that have been waiting the longest for a response are checkuser blocks. I cannot unblock those, so I've not looked closely. Perhaps a checkuser could look at them?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      I processed some from the top of the list that were marked as checkuser blocks - all of the ones I looked at had already been reviewed by a CU. I closed some but I am in meetings for the rest of the day. You might want to take a closer look, and perhaps consider adding a {{checkuser needed}} if they are still waiting. There aren't that many CUs that patrol unblocks, but the template lists the page in a table at WP:SPI that we all look at. I think they also get posted to IRC but I'm not on there. Ivanvector (/Edits) 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Now seems like a good time to invite comment on User:Tamzin/wild ideas/Unsucking unblocks, my radical proposal for restructuring the system. It's already gotten some very helpful feedback from some of the participants in this discussion. Please note, this is still in the workshop phase, so I'm not asking for support/oppose comments at this time. But I welcome any and all comments on its talkpage about how to make the idea better and/or more likely to pass an RfC. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Trigger-happy blocks are for sure another serious issue here, we need to work it from both ends. El Beeblerino 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have little to offer here, except to say that decisiveness is a virtue only if the decider is right. In itself it is very overrated. I wish that people, especially politicians, would be more honest and say "I don't know" much more often. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Self-requested RM relist review

    I recently relisted Talk:Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act#Requested move 11 December 2024 but I'm not entirely certain if that or closing as not moved was the correct option. There were zero !votes in support of the requested move, and the nominator's argument misrepresented policy, but three of the oppose !votes indicated that they would support renaming the article to something else that accounts for the fact that the article also discusses another bill. Therefore, I relisted the discussion with the following comment:

    There is a very clear consensus against the proposed move, but some people have suggested moving to an alternative title that also accounts for the mention of another bill in this article. Further discussion is needed on that aspect of the request.

    I've never relisted a discussion for a reason like this before, so I've come here to request review of if my decision was the correct one. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    I think this is an appropriate relist since additional discussion might lead to consensus on a new title or enough options for a bartender's close. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    "Early" closes at AfD

    The closing instructions at AfD currently says A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). I have noticed that several discussions each day are being closed early. Most of these are less than 30 minutes early but I have seen up to 2 hours early of their 7 days/168 hours. If articles are being closed as keep, I think that's arguably defensible and relisting early when it's obvious no consensus will be reached definitely makes sense, but I have a harder time with deletions. Truthfully, I don't understand the rush, especially as most (if not all - I've only spot checked this) are being done with XfDCloser which warns you if you're going early - that is these admins are making a conscious to close early. Since we're talking a handful minutes it likely doesn't make a difference in the outcome. But for me the instructions imply closing before 168 hours should be more a IAR situation rather than several discussions each day and multiple admins doing it. I thought I would bring it here for discussion to see if it's just me or if it bothers anyone else. And if it is just me maybe we adjust the instruction (or maybe I'm just making normally out to be a stronger prohibition than it's meant to be). I'm specifically not naming any of the admins or linking to any early closes as I'm not looking to get anyone "in trouble", just trying to see where the community stands, but obviously all of this can be observed by anyone else who wants to go through the day's closes at AfD. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't overly matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. TheSandDoctor 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @TheSandDoctor: I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours since last relist. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, TheSandDoctor, there's no requirement to wait another week following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. SerialNumber54129 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    To be clear the AfDs I'm discussing have not been relisted; they're being closed before 7 total days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) I was actually thinking of raising different modification: currently WP:AFD/AI actually indicates discussions should be closed after they have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old (which is 168 hours + rollover of UTC day), which definitely does not reflect practice. I would agree that pre-168 hour closure should probably only occur in exceptional circumstances, though I can't say I've really been keeping track of them so I wouldn't know if the current rate is above my expectations. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't done formal math but based on having looked at this over 10 days of closes I'm guessing it hovers just under 10%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have been doing some afd closes and I have noticed this as well, probably done it a few times myself, when the result seemed unlikely to change. I usually start doing them less than two hours before midnight UTC though, which is three in the afternoon for me. El Beeblerino 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't recall you from the days I've sampled, but art of my thought here is that AfD seems more than adequately staffed at the moment. So what's the rush with any of these? Just let them play out for the full time and any of the many admin who are around can handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just popped in there, all but one from today was already closed. I could be imagining this, but it feels like since I started doing AFD closes again last month, the other regulars have started doing them even earlier. It also seems clear that some of them are watching them days ahead of time, while myself I prefer to come in clean and just read the debate, but that's perhaps just a matter of personal taste. I agree there's no real rush, there's plenty of other backlogs that actually need help. El Beeblerino 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it tends to be only the kinda gross ones that end up on the /Old list. I've set myself a personal policy to not relist anything that hasn't made it to that page, but I'd also be pretty happy if we all agreed to only close AfDs after they ended up there. -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the issue is that WP:AFD/AI (To process an AFD debate listed on a day page containing debates old enough to be closed) implies something different than the explicit statement in WP:CLOSEAFD (A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)), then the two should be reconciled in some way.
    I don't think that there is an objectively better answer here, but the current practice appears to be closer to the language in WP:CLOSEAFD. Since, as WP:PAG notes, technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors, I think we may want to consider tentatively revising WP:AFD/AI pending future discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Except old enough links to WP:OLD and only things older than 168 hours appear on that page. So I'm not sure I agree they need reconciling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • As someone who has closed thousands of AFDs, I'll just say that closure times varies a lot over time (I'm talking years) and with different discussion closers. NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early, sometimes a full day or two early. I assume this is because they think a discussion looks like SNOW and they want to get the practice of closing AFDs. I regularly remind them to wait for 7 days to pass.
    And we have some admins, none of whom are currently closing AFD discussions, who consistently close up to 9 or 10 hours early. In the past, I have often left a user talk page note about these early closures and those notes usually result in changes in their behavior. Then, there is another phenomena at 23:00 UTC, there is often early closures of lingering AFD discussions that are due to end between 23:00-24:00 UTC. In general, I don't get concerned about AFD closures that are within an hour or two of the appropriate closure time but I do post notifications to closers who close AFDs half a day or days early. We have respected admins who are irregular closers who close a discussion as SNOW that doesn't seem like SNOW to me! I'll just say that while this phenomena might be getting attention right now, the situation is much better now that it was months or years ago. I also recommend that any chiding of closers is done as a general and gentle reminder to all admins, not singling out individuals as we always are short of closers and some of our worst early closers simply do not close AFDs any longer. That's my 2 cents as someone who spends a lot of time in this area.
    I'll also say that while I believe in the 7 day rule, we really get little discussion participation after the first two or three days, when discussions are first posted or right after a discussion has been relisted. We see little last minute activity in deletion discussions. That's my observation. Liz 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's what I've generally seen as well, although as you know I wasn't regularly doing them for quite a while until recently. I figure when it is the last hour for everything, it's probably ok to close slightly early unless you see a very recent post that makes a new point or points out sources not previously discussed. Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.

    For the record I appreciate your pointers to me when I started doing them again. The XFDcloser is a real game changer, which is probably why closes are being handled so quickly, but you do kinda need to know what you are doing with it.

    For those that may not know, the XFD closer does alert you when you are closing a discussion early and you have to affirm you are doing so deliberately. El Beeblerino 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time. I have to register strong disagreement with this statement. It's not my experience that most AFDs are closed hours ahead of time. I think that most closers are very respectful of the 7 day guideline and only close discussions early if it is SNOWING until we get to the 23:00 UTC hour. I think some closers, admins and NACs, have a SNOW bar that is too low (like 4 Keeps or 4 Deletes) but that is a subjective judgment on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. Liz 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion. An AfD should be closed when the outcome is clear. A WP:SNOW close is absolutely fine when the snow has fallen. An early close by a few hours is fine when, aside from outliers making weak arguments, there is overwhelming consensus for specific outcome that cannot realistically change in the course of the normal pattern of an AfD. BD2412 T 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, this seems like a good problem to have.
    Regarding, "NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early", I've closed discussions as clearly keep on the seventh calendar day, but an hour or more before the clock completely runs out, and don't see an issue with something like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wanda Toscanini Horowitz where there is discussion and only keep !votes. I've also had several times where I read through the discussion, wrote up the rationale, and came back a few minutes before the clock ran out only to find the discussion already closed early by another editor. Closing early (at least for me) is to avoid duplicating and wasting effort.
    A technical solution to make collaboration easier when closing would be appreciated. I have no idea how the XFDcloser gadget works, but I'm imagining some kind of way to flag an AfD discussion not as closed but as "being reviewed" or something like that. Rjj (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Rjjiii, I wasn't talking about all NACs or anyone specifically. I think it's just a tendency among NACs to be enthusiastic about closing or relisting discussions and so they can take action too soon sometimes. But NACs help out a lot and usually make accurate closures. IF I have issues with any editor, I bring it to their User talk page and they are almost always very responsive to criticism which, to me, is an essential trait on this platform. Liz 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Liz, gotcha, and I wasn't taking it in a personal way. I realize it can be hard to tell with just text. Rjj (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    On replacing crap lead image for Sophia Loren

    I have indefinitely blocked Light show for this latest knowing violation of their topic ban, as noted in the discussion below. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    As a topic-banned editor, although no one knows why, am I allowed to request that a piece of crap photo of Sophia Loren be replaced by one worthy of her stature? I assume I can't request it on her talk page. There seem to be over a 100 of her on the commons, 99% of which are better than the one someone stuck on her bio. Try this one, for starters, which shows her at the peak of her career. An editor a few months ago requested someone "replace that crap crop" of Maggie Smith on my talk page, which was accomplished.

    Top Awards: Academy Awards: Best Actress: her the first actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language performance. Honorary Award: (1991) for her contributions to world cinema. Golden Globes: Cecil B. DeMille Award: (1995) for outstanding contributions to the entertainment world. Multiple Golden Globe nominations, winning Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical for The Millionairess. Cannes Film Festival: Best Actress: Two Women (1961). BAFTA: Best Foreign Actress: Two Women (1962). Grammy Award: Best Spoken Word Album for Children: Peter and the Wolf (1981), shared with other performers. 7 Best Actress Awards, including for Two Women and A Special Day. Golden Lion Award for Lifetime Achievement (Venice Film Festival): (1998). Presidential Medal of Freedom (USA): (2019), awarded for her cultural contributions. Career Overview: Number of Films: Over 90 films over a 70-year career. Light show (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    This is the reason for the topic ban. It's logged here. Reason: IDHT+disruptive edits. AKAF (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Given that you've been blocked six times for breaching the topic ban, I would have thought it would have been clear why it exists by now. Not only that, but this request is also a violation of the topic ban, which you should have been aware of per this discussion from last year. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't think one is allowed to use the AN board, to request a proxy edit to an area one's t-banned from. GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    No. JJPMaster (she/they) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Light show: It is concerning that you do not understand the reasons for your TBAN and that you have once again violated it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    {{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}}

    Sulan114 is not eligible to file this petition. --Yamla (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Admin targeted a User in October 2023 by making a redirect of users former usernames Sulan114 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    This user is not eligible to start recall, unless the rules have changed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nor can someone elected to ArbCom in the past year be recalled. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.

    Wikidata is thataway. → - The Bushranger One ping only 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Belarus 79.105.137.11 06:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Add to wikidata.

    Add the Romani article for Sweden: https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Sveko

    Add the Romani article for Cyprus: https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Chipro 79.105.137.11 06:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Bosniya_thai_Hercegovina 79.105.137.11 06:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/New_York_(stato) 79.105.137.11 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    • Hi. Thanks for this list of links but this isn't really the place to make content requests. If there's specific well-sourced information in articles on other Wikipedias that could also be in our articles, then you should feel free to add it yourself. If you need help in how to do so, a good place to ask would be at the teahouse. Re the requests to add material to Wikidata: sorry but that's a separate site, you'd be better off reposting your requests directly at Wikidata.-- Euryalus (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @The Bushranger:, could you take care of (I assume) this person at 37.21.144.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) rq? Remsense ‥ 论 07:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Blatant vandalism

    Article draftified, not vandalized. Draft creator blocked after personal attacks. Page mover encouraged to use scripts that inform content creators when an article is moved to Draft space (see Draftify or Move to Draft on Misplaced Pages:User scripts/List#Drafts 2). Liz 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    I created a page Styrian derby and put A LOT of work into gathering all information. Within hours, user Snowflake91 simply deleted it. No warning, no explanation, no reasoning, just deleted everything. This is not the first time this user has arbitrarily deleted or undone my work and you can see on his talk page that other users have experienced the same type of behavior by this user. He just keeps doing it over and over again. It is time for someone to put a stop to this, because this arrogance is completely unacceptable. Please deal with this person and restore the page I created. Thanks. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    The article wasn't deleted, it was moved to Draft:Styrian derby with the comment "not ready for mainspace, zero sources and zero indications of notability, there needs to be more than just a list of head to head matches to warrant an article, it fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG". --rchard2scout (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Then why doesn't this user communicate that clearly to a user like me? Is it that difficult to do that? He can take the time to move the article and delete links to the article I have created instead of taking the time to say, 'Hey, good article, but you need to add source'? The source is the official website of the Football Association of Slovenia and I collected all data from there. Notability? Styrian derby has been listed here List of association football club rivalries in Europe for quite a while but over the last twenty years no-one had ever bothered to do the work and make an article about it. There are only four real derbies in that country and I created a page about the second most important one (apart from Eternal derby (Slovenia)). Seriously, it is this kind of behavior by arrogant administrators that has put many people off when it comes to editing Misplaced Pages. Instead of valuing INFORMATION and thanking users for the work they put in, Misplaced Pages chooses to value admins of whom quite a few are on high horses. This is exactly why I stopped donating to Misplaced Pages years ago. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    You have been on WP since 2007. Isn't it obvious that Draft:Styrian derby has no hint of WP:N as currently written (and can a football rivalry have "Honours"?)? If you want this article to have a chance to "stick" in mainspace, try following the advice at WP:BACKWARD. Find some great independent sources on this football rivalry, summarize them and cite them. That is the work on this website. You can ask for input at related wikiprojects, maybe someone will be interested in the subject. Moving that article to draft is not WP:VANDALISM, not even close. And fwiw, Snowflake91 is not an admin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Štajerski derbi doesn't help much, but consider looking at , you might find something WP-good there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I simply used the template used here Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007)#Honours. How does that page differ from the one I created? It only has a longer intro, that's it. The rest is all the same - data/info (which is what people want to see when checking about derbies). The original article (which I had also made a link to) doesn't provide more info either, but no-one decided to move or delete that one. There are many references to this derby online and people who search for the article will not be searching for info on 'what it is' (even though that is also clearly described in the first sentence of the article), they will be searching for a comprehensive overview of results, which I have provided. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    There are many references to this derby online Then it should be easy for you to add them to the draft article. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    And focus on the ones that show WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Draftifying articles that are unsourced and are mistakenly put into main space isn't vandalism. But User:Snowflake91, there are multiple scripts available that many editors and page patrollers use to draftify articles and they all make a point of posting a notification on the User talk page of the article creator. Please do this in the future if you move an article across namespaces. Install the script and it will post the notice for you. Liz 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I truly find this need to write a longer intro of what the derby is completely unnecessary. Go to NK Maribor and you will see the Styrian derbi mentioned in the fourth paragraph from the top. Go to Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) page. What does it say under 'History and rivalry culture' and under 'Fans'? Nothing. It says one team is supported by their fans and the other team is supported by the other fans. Duh! Who would've thought? And the external links (notes #8, #9, and #10) in the 'Fans' section are ALL about violence, nothing more. My beef is with these double standards. One article in Misplaced Pages (such as Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007)) can stand the way it is, but an almost identical article about a separate rivalry is put under such scrutiny and shelved (draftified)? Utterly ridiculous. If the article I created doesn't meet the necessary standards, then neither does Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007), plain and simple. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Your article had precisely zero sources. It is never going to survive in mainspace without them because WP:V is a policy. As for Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) - well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing, but that article does have sources. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:OTHERSTUFF, I mean feel free to nominate Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) for deletion if you want. Maybe check out WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY instead (which you clearly still don't understand what the problem with your entry is), the other article has an in-depth coverage from the national television station, like that article, and this alone would probably meet WP:GNG. Meanwhile, your article consists of 1 very short sentence in the lead section and a list of head-to-head matches, and 0 sources...close enough I guess? Snowflake91 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    All the data I got is from this source . Is it sufficient if I add this reference/link to the article for the article to be deemed Misplaced Pages-worthy? NoWikiNoLife (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Check WP:GNG again. The page you just linked doesn't even mention "Štajerski derbi" afaict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Again, utterly absurd. It is the OFFICIAL list of all matches between the two teams as provided by the Football Association of Slovenia. The page Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) which (under 'Matches') has links to match reports is using that same website as source. If that is sufficient for the page Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) even though the Football Association of Slovenia website doesn't mention the name 'Eternal derby' anywhere, then why doesn't the same apply to 'Styrian derby'? This makes zero sense. And the solution is not to delete both pages, the solution is to allow both to stand as they are. This is a clear case of Administration > Information. Red tape. Unnecessary. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, it's called Misplaced Pages policy. No sources = no article. A source that just lists match results is not going to be able to source an article about a derby match, because it needs more than just a simple list of statistics. The Eternal Derby article, as already mentioned, has plenty of other sources. Is that one a great article? Perhaps not. Does it meet Misplaced Pages policy? Yes, it does. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    This probably belongs to the talk page of the draft, but your info in this article is also fully wrong - for example, you claim that the first match between the two teams was played in 1991 (after Slovenia's independence), but you do realise that both clubs have played each other in Yugoslav football between 1961 and 1991 as well, right? The first match was almost cetrainly played during the 1960–61 Slovenian Republic League season, as you can see that both teams played in that league at the time (and finished in 1st and 2nd place)...so this is also obvious Misplaced Pages:No original research issue. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    One incorrect info is enough to mark the whole article as 'fully wrong'? That's simply a technicality that can be solved by noting that the date refers to the first match ever played in PrvaLiga, not the first match ever in history. Like I've said before, you are a control freak who stalks anyone who dares edit any Misplaced Pages article to do with your country and you see all 'outsiders' as somehow 'challenging your authority'. During the last week, you have come to my user page uninvited, while I was creating this page, saw that I was creating it, then removed something from the article I was creating (on my user page!) without even bothering to post why you removed that (you could clearly see it was 'work in progress') but never bothered to instruct that such an article may not be up to standards. You let me complete the work, then once I posted it live, you moved it to drafts. Pathetic. You're a stalker, period, and anyone who has ever made edits to articles related to your country knows this to be a fact. You follow my contributions page and come and 'edit' after my edits even on pages that have nothing to do with your country. Those 'edits' of yours are unnecessary and you know it. Again, I will repeat myself - you are a stalker. It's also pathetic that Misplaced Pages admins allow you to get away with what you do. Honestly, I no longer care. I thought this would be a good addition to Misplaced Pages, an article no-one bothered doing for over 20 years, including you, but you clearly want to assert your dominance. So, have it your way. But it's because of overbearing people like you that Misplaced Pages suffers, trust me on that. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Bruh...firstly, I'm not "stalking" you, I simply have (almost) all Slovenian football-related articles on my watchlist so that's why they were edited after I "stalked" you; secondly, I removed inter-language wiki links at the bottom of your user page (which were abolished like a decade ago by the way, now you need to use Wikidata for that), because Slovenian article sl:Štajerski derbi was literally connected and linked to your user page because of that, and thirdly, maybe use a sandbox (User:NoWikiNoLife/sandbox) for working on articles, and not your user page in the first place. And I thought that you would add sources and write at least some useful prose from that "work in progress" article, but then you just published it with no sources and head-to-head matches only and nothing else. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've temporarily blocked NoWikiNoLife for the above personal attacks. I don't see any other admin action needed here. Sandstein 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST

    As 184* points out, this is (a) apparently sourced and (b) a content dispute. WT:FILM is thataway. → - The Bushranger One ping only 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    It seems that everyone is ensemble cast in upcoming Malayalam films. Certain editors, mostly IPs, are unnecessarily adding the term to almost every article about Malayalam films, especially upcoming films. Either they don’t understand what an ensemble cast actually means, or they just think it looks pretty. This violates WP:CRYSTAL. I've noticed this trend for several months now. Please keep an eye on articles about upcoming Malayalam films. Relevant entries can be found in List of Malayalam films of 2024, Category:Upcoming Malayalam-language films, and Category:Upcoming Indian films. 2409:4073:4E00:16EC:242B:D24F:CEC9:7F75 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Can you link a specific article this happened on, and which IP performed the edit? guninvalid (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    This doesn't seem to be an issue for AN to deal with and I don't see the CRYSTAL issue mentioned by the IP user. Regardless here is a breakdown of the Malayalam category to answer the question: Bha. Bha. Ba. by Killeri Achu in this edit; Daveed (2025 film) by Arjusreenivas in this edit (At least, I believe this one refers to an ensemble cast); Identity (2025 film) by Arjusreenivas in this edit; L2: Empuraan by an IP user in this edit; Ouseppinte Osyath by SRAppu in this edit. Mostly different editors. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Marco (106.196.26.252), Identity (Arjusreenivas), Daveed (Arjusreenivas), Bha. Bha. Ba. (Killeri Achu), Ouseppinte Osyath (SRAppu), Rifle Club (Mims Mentor), L2: Empuraan (2402:8100:3912:3e18:a17a:4a77:e0c2:5773). Even released Malayalam films are retrospectively changed, example: Thankamani (CIDALEBRA20001).--2409:4073:4D1E:B3B6:64FF:716A:3833:210B (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    As per WP:CRYSTAL, Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Misplaced Pages does not predict the future. These editors add speculative labels for unreleased films, which definitely constitute WP:CRYSTAL. Where are the sources for "ensemble cast"? --2409:4073:4D1E:B3B6:64FF:716A:3833:210B (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Just spot-checking here, the use of ensemble cast in Ouseppinte Osyath is directly supported by a reference in the article In addition to Vijayaraghavan, the film boasts a talented ensemble cast. Given WP:RSNOI I could still see why some might be uncomfortable with that. However, as several users have added this descriptor, and it can at least in some cases be supported directly by reference, this would seem to fall within the realm of content issue and is probably best discussed at WT:FILM. There is also nothing preventing anyone from simply boldly removing the descriptor with an explanation from any article where it is thought inappropriate and subsequently discussing on a case-by-case basis if any reverts take place. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mass rollbacking my bot

    Bot rollback successful. Liz 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Hi. I was running a task using User:CanonNiBot, which failed when it tripped a private edit filter. Could an admin do a mass rollback of its edits so far, while I wait for a response at WP:EFFPR? Thanks. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Do you want the two pages it created deleted? DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, that too. Sorry for the inconvenience. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
     Done! DrKay (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Question about Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan

    Would Urartu and Urartian people be covered under Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan and Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan? The source on Urartu notes Urartu has a significant role in Armenian nationalism.

    The reason I'm asking is the recently created Urartian people, which had very problematic sources such as racial sources from from 1957 . These type of sources are now removed, but see the AfD entry. Bogazicili (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    In my opinion yes, they would: the combination of that "significant role" and the scope of both sets of sanctions being "broadly construed" is sufficient to include them. WaggersTALK 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. Have verified that this is an Armenian nationalistic claim: Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism page 3.
    I'll add the relevant templates in Talk:Urartu and Talk:Urartian people. And will remove this comment by non extended confirmed editor. Bogazicili (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione

    DONE This discussion has been closed as keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster (she/they) 05:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Someone please close this already as "keep", or "no consensus". Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    I am involved, but I believe that any outcome other than "keep" would be highly controversial. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Isn't it too early? -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Small technical question

    I was looking for a discussion at ANEW that I knew had happen (under "User: Policynerd3212 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Protection raised to EC)") as I had a link to the discussion. But when I searched the archives, this discussion didn't show up. So, I went to the archive page and it seems, somehow, between two edits, half the page disappeared even though that content deletion isn't visible in the edit.

    In this edit, you can easily see the discussion with Policy Nerd, it's the 31st discussion on the page that contains 35 discussions. But in the next edit on the page by the archive bot, there are now only 15 discussions on the page, not 35 even though the edit doesn't show the content being removed. So, where did those 20 discussions go? Has this deletion of content from noticeboard archives been a regular thing?

    Anyone have a clue what happened here and why the removal of content would not be visible in this edit? Thanks. Liz 05:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    (Non-admin comment) the issue might be to do with the error message in this section:

    User:49.206.131.126 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168561 by Adakiko (talk) The tile "Father of the nation" is sometimes used for Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in India but Part III, Article 18 of the Indian Constitution prohibits conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State.Cite error: A (see the help page). Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

    Blocked – for a period of 1 month This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

    References

    User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)

    Daveosaurus (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    So, you're saying that the content is still there, it's just been hidden for years because of the absence of a closing tag by the archiving bot? I wonder if this has happened on other archive pages. Liz 05:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's still not clear to me how to fix this. Liz 05:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Someone has fixed it (I wasn't willing to try it myself as it was well above my pay grade...) the only way I can think of for finding other cases of this would be searching other pages for the same error message but for all I know this could throw up thousands of false positives. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Same problem at Talk:Rajput/Archive 35 , 25 sections but only a few are showing up. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Fixed now (thanks Daveosaurus). - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    You fixed the rest while I was looking for the other missing ref tag... there were at least two missing this time.
    For future reference (until someone comes up with an official techie explanation)... what was missing was a </ref> tag which meant massive chunks of content didn't show up. All that was needed for the fixes was to find out where the missing tag belonged and add it. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Well, thanks to whomever fixed this problem on this one archive page. It would be great if we could get a bot to scan for missing ref tags on archive pages. I know as an admin, I search admin noticeboards archives all of the time for previous reports and if even 10% of them are hidden because the archiving bot is cutting off tags when it reposts content, that could impact the work that we do. I know that this is a longterm issue to fix but we don't know how extensive it is. Maybe I'll put in a request on the Bot Noticeboard. But I appreciate editors who had some creative solutions here. Liz 08:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Edit war with User:Mellk vs User:Rnd90

    Matter handled. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    User Mellk has been repeatedly removing well-sourced information from the Mikhail Prokhorov article. The removed content includes cited sources indicating possible violations of international laws by Mikhail Prokhorov. It appears that User Mellk may be attempting to conceal this information by removing it from the article.

    Proposed Action: I respectfully request that an uninvolved editor or administrator review this matter. Please assess the reliability of the cited sources and help ensure that properly sourced content remains in compliance with Misplaced Pages’s policies. If the user’s actions are found to be disruptive or noncompliant with policy, I ask for administrative intervention to prevent further edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8400:7030:7324:DD1B:C59A:7C6D (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Rnd90 (talk · contribs) was edit warring attempting to restore this edit they made. I originally removed this writing in the edit summary that it does not belong in the first sentence. We also have IPs appearing to restore the edit as well. This looks like a pretty clear WP:DUCK. Mellk (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dubai chocolate

    I don't think the IPs are related to @Dan Palraz. This is otherwise a content dispute. Please discuss this on article talk and seek dispute resolution as needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    So I created the article Dubai chocolate this week, and it got some attention I'm unsure how to deal with. I'm not even really concerned about the content itself, but more with how the content is edited.

    There is an IP who made some changes while I was about to expand the article, so I saved my edit ignoring the edit by the IP because I also disagreed with the IP's edits. So sometime later an IP from the same range made a very similar edit, this time I explained it in detail why I don't think these edits are appropriate here and even before I could save my edit on the talk page, Dan Palraz also made such a similar edit. I saw that Dan Palraz even moved Kadayif (pastry) which was fortunately soon reverted as undiscussed move by M.Bitton.

    I don't want an edit war, so I will not edit this page now (and it's getting late, UTC+1). I'm always happy when others help improving articles, but not in the way it's happening currently. So I kindly ask Dan Palraz to revert their edits and discuss such edits on the talk page first and I'm seeking help from an administrator so this doesn't escalate to a real conflict. Thanks for reading this. Killarnee (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Potential paid article writing (or just very bad form) by @Readcircle

    Nothing left to do here. Orientls (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    I have no evidence for paid article writing, but otherwise this is very bad form. A quick look at @Readcircle's edit history is they almost always start with a sandbox article before moving to draft and then moving into mainspace, completely bypassing the WP:AfC process. And they seem to do so for only high profile WP:BLPs like with Ivan Yuen (Co-founder Wattpad), Vivian Kao, Stanislav Vishnevsky, and Evan Doll. I took a look at Ivan Yuen's page and it read like a resume, both in the "glowing positive review" sense and in the "meaningless vague garbage" sense. I trimmed almost everything from it before changing my !vote to Delete on the AfD. A brief skim of Vivian Kao notes the same problem, and the references listed almost exclusively describe Shou Zi Chew, who is her considerably more famous husband. guninvalid (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Nevermind. Checkuser got to them first. You can archive this now guninvalid (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    PayPal Honey edit warring

    Page protected. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Anybody willing to check in on PayPal Honey? A lot of edit warring over unsourced content is happening right now due to some allegations by a YouTuber. I requested protection at WP:RFPP but it doesn't look like anyone is answering any requests right now. Tarlby 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Someone on PayPal Honey's talk page said that "all sources are user-generated", referring to how user-generated sources like YouTube aren't always reliable. While I'm not necessarily saying Megalag is wrong, I still think we should let more sources come out about this aside from social media and forums. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I’ve just restored to the pre-edit war version. It doesn’t look like much constructive edits were lost, and once sources start publishing articles in this, we can readd it. ARandomName123 (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    It appears that at least one of the disruptive editors understands why this is a problem. A RPP sounds appropriate if you can get some action over there with a semi-protect at least. TiggerJay (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like in the last few minutes it was fully projected for 2 days. TiggerJay (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    shouldn't this be reported at WP:ANEW with prereq diffs? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I was considering sending the report to ANEW, but the Twinkle menu said I had to resolve the issue in a talk discussion first before I do so, so that's what I did. Looks like it worked though, don't you agree? Tarlby 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    also looks like user who was editwarring is a newbie who didn't know policy. we really shouldn't WP:BITE them, and newbie seems to show remorse and understanding . Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor

    FORUM SHOPPING Duplicate of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor. Please discuss there. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Dear Wikipedians,

    I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @Kriji Sehamati, despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, but the contributor seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.

    I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

    Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

    Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    First of all, you need to inform Kriji Sehamati. I have done so. This report, as well as the AfD's linked on your talk page all appear to be generated by LLMs. This appears to be a dispute about AfDs.Jip Orlando (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Category: