| Revision as of 06:56, 16 December 2007 view sourceDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,635 edits +← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:00, 11 January 2025 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,202 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive368) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{pp-sock|small=yes}} | |||
| <div align="center">{{Purge|''Purge the cache to refresh this page''}}</div> | |||
| <noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |counter = 368 | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d | |||
| |counter = 115 | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 700K | |||
| |algo = old(48h) | |||
| | |
|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 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| --><!-- | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| =Current issues= | |||
| <!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- --> | |||
| <!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. --> | |||
| <!-- ---------------------------------------------------------- --> | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| == ] == | |||
| New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. | |||
| ---------------------------------------------------------- | |||
| --><noinclude> | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| Look at that. And his contribs! The has repetedly recreated ] and has been warned for it. User should be blocked. —]]<sup>]]</sup><small>@11/27/2007 04:18</small> | |||
| :] got him. ] | |||
| ==Open tasks== | |||
| == Community ban of spammer == | |||
| <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| {{Admin tasks}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
| == Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request == | |||
| :''Moved to ] because this is 38kb of wikitext, 201kb post-expand, and literally half the rendered page.''' | |||
| Executive summary: {{userlinks|Webgeek}} and numerous IPs added many links to sites apparently run by him. —] 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| Futuristic timestamp to keep this from getting archived by the bot: 23:59, 31 December 2037 (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 ]. | |||
| == Rex Germanus == | |||
| 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 ].}} | |||
| I'm getting quite fed up with ]. Since I'm definitely not neutral on this (involved gradually in different editing disputes with him), I am bringing this here for general consideration (since the CSN board is closed down), to see what (if anything) should be done. | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠]♠ ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft == | |||
| Since his return from a month long block on November 13, Rex has continued his disruptive behaviour, but is now supported by a number of IP adresses, including ], ], ] and ], all coming from ]. I have no idea if this is a sock- or meatpuppet, but it makes the situation even worse. | |||
| I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it. | |||
| Problems are: asking for references without ever providing some themselves (e.g. on ], ], or ]). Instead of replacing German with Dutch, his new topic is replacing Flemish with Dutch, even when it is incorrect, as in ]. He moved ] to ], and was unwilling to consider that he was wrong even when presented with references, and (again) without presenting any counterreferences himself, only his assertions (see ]). In these and other discussions, his (and the IP's) discussion and edit summaries where very often uncivil and personal, and very rarely constructive. ] is a good illustration of this. | |||
| It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so. | |||
| Finally, edits like this one are to me unacceptable. | |||
| The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page. | |||
| This is a complicated situation in which I am a party, but I seriously doubt if Rex has changed a bit since his last block, and if he is beneficial to Misplaced Pages. I have not issued any formal warnings, since (coming from me) they would probably only inflame the situation, instead of helping. ] (]) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Since he's been warned off editing German topics, Rex certainly seems to have acquired a bee in his bonnet about all things Flemish. The disruption is at a much lower intensity than before, but it's still there. --] (]) 10:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of. | |||
| ::All edits made displayed here where either because I had (better) sources or because others lacked them. I stand by all of them. | |||
| :::'Disrupted Topic' according to Fram: | |||
| ::::]: Being Dutch-born, ethnic sense, (Dunkirk being almost completely etnically Dutch at the time of his birth) doesn't say anything about nationality; the source of your confusion as noted in your edits. | |||
| ::::]: Explained at my talkpage, point of concern? 'Dunkirkers' also refers to people from Dunkirk in general. Simple as that. | |||
| ::::]: In the Beethoven question, which I've dropped as announced on the talk page) I proved my point that Flemish meant Dutch in beethovens time (and his ancestors times). Fran/Folentin demanded something ''more specific'' (what could cover my point more I ask myself). If that's 'not ever providing sources' then I don't know what that is. | |||
| :::For example Another false accusation to add to my list. I do use sources, more than any of the people mentioned above. This report to me is just a clear example of how these people try to push their changes on wikipedia without referencing. A small step from unfounded opinions, to personal attacks and allegations and now ... and attempt to block or similar. Sad, if you think you're right, go to library and find out for sure.] (]) 15:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I deny all accusations made by Erik Warmelink who accuses me of using sock/meatpuppets. I have never used them and never will. Just because an IP (I assume it is the same person) disagrees with you and supports me doesn't make it a sock, it just makes 2 vs 1.] (]) 15:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well then, quote the starting 10 words of the entry on "beethof" on http://www.etymologie.nl/ <small>(I get: ''Lemma niet gevonden! Dit deel van het Etymologisch Woordenboek van …'', crude translation: ''Lemma not found! This part of the etymological glossary of …''</small>), give a reliable source that links "van Beethoven" with Beets or the Betuwe, give a source that "van Beethoven" was ever used as a familyname in the Netherlands, give a reliable source that "proves" that Flemish meant Dutch in Beethovens time. Just because several IPs agree with you, doesn't make them socks; if all they do is agreeing with you (even ) and reverting to your versions (without interwiki's that were added and with spelling errors that were corrected), appearances are against you. Also explain . ] (]) 16:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page? | |||
| I invite everyone to look at the edits linked, and compare them with the actual statements by Rex Germanus. E.g. the ] edit I linked has nothing to do with the Flemish vs. Dutch dispute, and Rex Germanus ignores the other, more recent pages listed (e.g. ] is a very nice example, and ], where Rex Germanus makes even this evening clearly invalid statements on the talk page). Perhaps Rex uses sources, but he certainly doesn't provide them. ] (]) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Do not confuse yourself with me. I do provide sources. Look at Dutch people, over 110 references, nearly all added by me, I know how to reference.] (]) 10:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You have not provided sources for any of the disputes mentioned here: I'm glad that you know how to do it, but that doesn't excuse your behaviour in the last month. Why do you say here that "some people love fights" while going from a more to a less correct page?. Why do you make such clearly invalid statements like this one? Why did you change from one unsourced spelling to another unsourced one, but then accuse me of OR when I provide an independent but unreliable source (which of course is not OR at all), while not providing any source at all to support your version? And why are you so uncivil in nearly all your edits and edit summaries (when you use them)? ] (]) 13:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::What's less correct Fram? Explain that to me. That note on West Flemish is really a cry for help for '''your''' behavior. Your 'arguments' were/are completely discredited on talk and still you revert to your version. Also you did not, hence no links, in the entire West Flemish discussion provide any reference. So don't make it seem you did.] (]) 14:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Good grief, are we ''still'' dealing with this guy? How many kilobytes of AN and ANI discussion have been devoted to his antics? When is enough provocation enough? ] (]) 16:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Keep your good griefs to yourself and focus on what's presented, not how many times a name comes up on a page you happen to watch.] (]) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I'd move for a ban to stop Rex wasting any more of our time. He's just a Dutch nationalist logic-chopper with a grudge against Germans and, now it seems, the Flemish. --] (]) 09:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You people can go on making more melodramatic comments here for as long as you want, in every case here I provided references, others did and an the contributions button will show anyone that Erik Warmelink started all this with his on purpose nonsense reverts. He even stated against an IP how much he hates me. Ridiculous. I'm off continuing referenced editing. Some of you ought to try that too sometimes.] (]) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's an interesting way to summarize and . ] (]) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This really is nonsense. If someone askes references? or if he is a little bit nationalistic? Dit kinse toch neet meer geluive. --] (]) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Rex I have met you editing for over a year now, and most of it you have been engaged in one or more disputes. Although I have had my own disputes in that time, and made a comparable number of edits as you in that year, I have never been accused of any gross violation, no official complaint was ever listed against me. It cannot be only other editors bad-faith towards you that cause you being involved in so many formal procedures; it can only mean you are doing something wrong. Please consider this. ] (]) 19:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A clear cut example. The first adress of Erik Warmelink on talk was not a plea for his own version and why it was better, but a direct personal attack. A rant about how many blocks I've had. How do you see any good faith in that?] (]) 19:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::From my POV, it started with . was after my additions to ], which Rex Germanus . ] (]) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]? | |||
| ===Community ban discussion=== | |||
| we discussed {{userlinks|Rex Germanus}} on October 13, I blocked him for one month and suggested that further disruption should result in an indefinite block. Rex Germanus' long block log is strong evidence that he has worn out the community's patience. Before placing an indefinite block, I would like to run a checkuser to see if there is any sockpuppetry involved, and I'd also like to see a concise list of diffs showing disruption since the most recent block. - ] <sup>]</sup> 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I have filed ], and here is a set of diffs that demonstrate edit warring if these IP's are in fact Rex Germanus: -- If not, there may be other evidence sufficient to justify a community ban. - ] <sup>]</sup> 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Wie een hond wil slaan, vindt licht een stok.'' Go find your stick Jehochman. Surprise me.] (]) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you know anything about the IP editor(s) who have been supporting you in these content disputes? - ] <sup>]</sup> 20:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Clearly they/he/she must be insane, rude and nationalistic assholes. Why else would the IP(s) support me? I can't even comprehend that myself, I can only imagine how you felt in all your biased glory when you saw them! Poor you. ] (]) 20:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::* (ec) The checkuser result is "Possible". Given the identical point of view of the IP's and Rex Germanus, and the lack of technical evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to accept the assertions made by {{user|Fram}}. Rex Germanus has apparently returned to his previous editing style which has resulted in approximately , placed by diverse members of the Misplaced Pages admin corps. I think Rex Germanus has expended the community's patience and the time has come to ask him, politely but firmly, to leave the project. (add) Rude comments won't help your cause, Rex Germanus. - ] <sup>]</sup> 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* This diff shows an IP removing properly sourced content, using an deceptive "Interwiki" edit summary: The IP is Rex Germanus: - ] <sup>]</sup> 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Good catch. And if that IP is Rex, we have at the very least a breach of the revert parole, as he repeated the same revert under his account the next day (, ). However, that IP is not from the same range as the others, from a university in Tilburg. ] ] 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (Unindent) | |||
| ::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Editing at home, school/work, and a cafe will result in different IPs. I think we should mainly consider the styles of editing, and the tone of Rex Germanus' comments on this very thread. - ] <sup>]</sup> 23:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) (Keep thread open. 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| :::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be fair the editor was simply importing material from the Dutch version of the same page - summarizing this as "interwiki" might not have been entirely bad faith. --] (]) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On the contrary, Rex was deleting material, and then as shown above, he subsequently repeated the edit with his own account the next day. This is evidence of ] his revert parole. - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The edit didn't import, it reverted to a previous version by Rex Germanus and re-added ] which was added by ] (AlleborgoBot did add in alfabetical order, though). ] (]) 16:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] | ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. – ] <small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| **Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Given the repeated incidents of revert warring and POV pushing, compounded by the use of IP accounts to evade scrutiny, proven in one case, and very likely in at least three other cases, plus incivility by Rex Germanus right here in this thread, I suggest a 1 year ban. We've had 15 prior blocks, but Rex Germanus hasn't gotten the message yet. It's time to protect our editors. - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == 43.249.196.179 (again) == | |||
| ::Dear Jehochman. You can stop stalling the block/bann process in order to make it seem fair to outsiders, '''I've beaten you''' to it. Have a nice life, or whatever you call it.] (]) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm all for blocking indefinitely here. Rex is a long-term problem editor, who has had multiple last chances, has sockpuppeted to avoid his parole, and has a net negative effect on Misplaced Pages in general. ] ] 16:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've placed an indefinite block, and added the user account to ]. If any administrator would like to refactor the block and ban, you have my permission to do so. - ] <sup>]</sup> 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good. --] (]) 17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you. ] (]) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: |
::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| :::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ambivalent too. ] (]) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors. | |||
| :::Good, considering the absence of the entry "beethof" on etymology.nl. ] (]) 13:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am |
::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| ::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since I might be willing to unblock Rex after the new year, . I will not unblock Rex without Jehochman's agreement, nor without Rex's agreement to a broad topic ban, &c. All purely hypothetical. ] ] 11:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am willing to support that solution. If Rex Germanus wishes to return, subject to editing restrictions that will keep him away from topics where he has had past problems, then he can be unblocked.- ] <sup>]</sup> 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not sure what the point of this is. The guy spent his credit here long, long ago. He's had umpteen chances already. He also claims to have left Misplaced Pages of his own accord. --] (]) 12:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Rex has both contributed positively and negatively to Misplaced Pages, with the former recently being more and more often overshadowed by the the latter. If Rex were willing to return, I'd strongly suggest a compulsory mentorship by an neutral and experienced administrator. His mentor then could help Rex reinforce his good behavior (i.e. his contributions) while providing an external check against the problematic one (i.e. POV and civility issues) - and, if necessary, in an emerging dispute, either support Rex and curb potential trolling and incivility or encourage Rex to back down (if he doesn't) - as this is Rex's weak point; his edits might be ok (even if not "correct") but instead of a quick and painless discussion, it quickly turns into a "my way or the highway" scenario where Rex won't accept that he might be wrong nor will back down. An experienced mentor with the power to repel trolls (he did manage to accumulate a number of enemies) might just help him get back and stay on the right path. ]]/] 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Rex has entirely exhausted my patience, and I suspect the community's as well. Ask yourselves - is this really an editor we need? For me, that's a resounding "NO". ] <sup> ]</sup> 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Without making any comments on the rest of this section, I am willing to mentor Rex if he is allowed back (which I am not saying *should* happen - I'm staying neutral). I am a new adminsitrator, and I feel up to the challenge. <i>]</i> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Incivility at ] == | |||
| == ] and ] -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam? == | |||
| @] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This cluster of editors, articles and websites involves multiple issues and the material added to Misplaced Pages may (or may not) be useful. Various aspects have been discussed ad hoc at different times but never all in one place. I'm consolidating links to various discussions and editors here in one place for review and consideration as a whole. | |||
| :This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ] ] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ] ] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ] ] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages. | |||
| :But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}} | |||
| :::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}} | |||
| :::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;Articles: | |||
| *] -- previously proposed for deletion; PROD tag removed | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| **Over to this page. For those search engines (Yahoo?) that ignore our nofollow tags, that sort of internal mega-linking would give this article and anything externally linked to it near-] powers in search engine rankings. | |||
| :Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :That's up from about 250 a week or so ago. Only a small percentage of the links are added as a side-effect of adding content to the topics; and of those a large percentage are low-quality information expressing divergent views from more well-known resources. ] (]) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material == | |||
| ;Related editors (but not necessarily sockpuppets): | |||
| {{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| *{{IPSummary|71.42.169.190}} | |||
| *{{ |
* {{la|Naomi Seibt}} | ||
| After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{IPSummary|24.73.72.214}} | |||
| :Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{IPSummary|97.97.197.9}} | |||
| :Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{UserSummary|Cedarkey1}} | |||
| ::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{UserSummary|Pputter}} | |||
| :::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *{{UserSummary|Damslerset}} | |||
| ::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Topic ban appeal == | |||
| ;Discussions: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] <small>(permanent )</small> | |||
| *] <small>(permanent )</small> | |||
| *] <small>(permanent )</small> | |||
| *] | |||
| Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;Domains added to Misplaced Pages: | |||
| ::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Hundreds? Nobody knows exactly how many and Virtualology apparently own over 7500 domain names. See the 3 WikiProject Spam discussions for some that have been identified so far. | |||
| :::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored. | |||
| *:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects. | |||
| *:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did: | |||
| *:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart == | |||
| {{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — ] ] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ;Also see: | |||
| ::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| :@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *] | |||
| ::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| *SPAM - They are added indiscriminately, often to Reference sections where they are not a source, or just to the wrong person, like ] today, who (slightly comically) had <nowiki></nowiki> added today, at the top of the list, natch. ] (]) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Andra Febrian report == | |||
| ===In plain English=== | |||
| "Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has: | |||
| Tell me if I understand this right: some people have tried to revise a notoriously inaccurate reference source that's over 100 years old (the original contained over 200 fictitious biographies). The main individual involved in this effort has no academic or publishing credentials. Then this group of people have created countless domains to host parts of the "reference work" and cited Misplaced Pages articles that way, simultaneously sending hundreds of outgoing links to their domans and Wikilinks to the Misplaced Pages biography of one of this revised edition's principal editors? If that's an accurate summary, then the whole things fails ] and is a massive case of ]. WMF ought to be notified, given the size of this problem. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| - caused many edit wars <br/> | |||
| ::::Yes, though rather than "tried to revise" I suspect "made sufficient changes to justify (they hope) slapping a copyright notice on" is more like it. ] (]) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| - deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/> | |||
| : Smells like spam to me. I agree with Durova's suggestion. <b>] ]</b> 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| - not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/> | |||
| :: If ] posted this here to get general consent for a campaign against the entire set of external and internal links, I would support that. This could potentially lead to a combined AfD against all the Klos articles, and could be contentious, but well-justified by policy. Is there any wider review that should be done before such a step is taken? Does anyone see anything of value in the Klos-related material that ought to be preserved? ] (]) 20:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| - not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/> | |||
| I request that the user is warned. | |||
| ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| === Mr.Choppers warning request === | |||
| :::Ed, I posted it here not so much to get consent as to engender discussion this stuff's value. Since these links show up in references, I don't want to go off on a tear deleting citations and links the community finds useful, even if I don't like the way this stuff got added. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::I don't see how this could qualify under the standards Misplaced Pages normally applies. If the original source had been revised by an established publisher, using actual experts, then that might be a different matter. What we have here is self-published material and a staggering self-promotional campaign. The integrity of scores of important biographies may have been compromised. I want to be certain I understand this right before reaching a final conclusion, but if this really is a correct understanding then I'd not only endorse a combined AFD, I'd support a siteban and spam blacklisting along with a long term vandalism report. This behavior is a direct assault on Misplaced Pages's credibility: make absolutely certain you're on the mark first, then if everything checks out slash and burn. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/> | |||
| ::::If the stuff is not a reliable source, dump it. regardless of the collateral damage. --] (]) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/> | |||
| :::::Modifying that: perhaps these people will be receptive to official contact from WMF and take it down themselves. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/> | |||
| :(unindent) () The fact that these users edit to a point just short of being blocked & then reincarnate as a new user is a bit troubling. --]] 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/> | |||
| '''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/> | |||
| <br/> | |||
| I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12) | |||
| :Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Cannot draftify page == | |||
| ::Now that CheckUser has these 4 accounts as "related", can I ask an admin to block them as sockpuppets/meatpuppets: | |||
| {{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::*{{UserSummary|Cedarkey1}} | |||
| I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{UserSummary|Pputter}} | |||
| :{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*{{UserSummary|Damslerset}} | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::*{{UserSummary|Solknats}} | |||
| ::Thanks, --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Remove PCR flag == | |||
| :::To help in investigating the many domains, I've set up a ] listing the domains we know of. I'll be using the {{tl|spamlink}} template links to try to figure out what other domains this person owns and may have spammed. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:<]></span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == "The Testifier" report == | |||
| :I see Virtuality as an honest attempt to do a good project, but based upon an extremely naive understanding of history and scholarship. I think he really does want to revise it--but he unfortunately picked something that should instead be replaced, as being fundamentally too weak for improvement. It hasn't helped that he has an idiosyncratic view of the relationship of the government under the Articles of Confederation with that under the Constitution, but I think has wider goals, which are not dishonourable. Just that he hasnt achieved them, and is not likely to--and the present state of the project is in fact dangerous. The proper use of Appleton's for WP is only as a suggestion of names upon which people might write proper WP articles. The best immediate thing is to remove the internal links as misleading and the external ones as unreliable. The sockpuppetry is simply someone continuing on a hobbyhorse, and willing to disregard our rules to do so--and of course must be blocked, to prevent further damage. ''']''' (]) 22:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::the articles supported by cites from any version of appleton must be reviewed, not deleted altogether, as they can generally be edited to what can be documented elsewhere. Most of them can be expanded greatly if proper sources are used--appleton is not only incorrect but incomplete. If the appleton-based edits are recent, then it will be enough to revert them. This probably needs to be a formal or informal project. 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Problem with creating user talk page == | |||
| ::::DGG, thanks for your comments -- you've studied this site more closely than anyone else. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ] (]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Here's another sockpuppet (based on edits, not checkuser): | |||
| ::::*{{UserSummary|Natsnew}} | |||
| ::::Can some admin block it? Thanks. | |||
| :I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also, it looks like this has been spammed crosswiki: | |||
| ::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*] | |||
| :::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*] | |||
| ::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*] | |||
| :::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*] | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::::*] | |||
| == Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 == | |||
| ::::Articles: | |||
| ::::*] | |||
| ::::*] | |||
| ::::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] from the past month (December 2024). | |||
| Yikes! on this Misplaced Pages plus 200 to 250 more on other projects: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| <div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap"> | |||
| Here's another IP that was heavily used: | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| *{{IPSummary|24.94.139.230}} | |||
| ] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
| We've identified another about ], most of them for individual historical figures (abraham-lincoln.org, aaronburr.net, etc.). Based on a small sample, I'd say there are another 200 to 500 links to the domains on that list. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| ] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
| ::Apparently an admin previously okayed the addition of these links. See these March 2007 discussions: | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| ::*] | |||
| |] | |||
| ::*] | |||
| |] | |||
| ::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| Not to mention there's banner ads and adsense too (pub-6719872942509405). It's spam. Can we start removing the links now? ] 01:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="flex: 1 0 20em"> | |||
| :Good heavens banner ad/adsense issues too? By all means start deleting. That's my call anyway. Thank you so much for your diligence. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] '''Oversight changes''' | |||
| ::To be honest, Durova, I'm not sure banner ads and Google Adsense make a site inappropriate. You'll get ads on and pages and you'll find Adsense ads at the bottom of articles. Legitimate content providers have to pay bills, too. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 02:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] {{hlist|class=inline | |||
| :::They don't make a site inappropriate in itself, I agree. If the site is already inappropriate as a reference, and if the same people are spamming it onto Misplaced Pages as if it were a reliable source, then what that amounts to is an attempt to skim profit off Misplaced Pages's massive traffic. That's a bit more predatory than ordinary spam, which (we hope) at least offers solid informational value and doesn't earn a direct profit from click-throughs. Bear in mind that ''New York Times'' citations aren't spam: it's a newspaper of record that thousands of people add to this site's pages as a reference. The danger of going to soft on pseudoreferencing is that we'd get overrun with junk. This isn't a small campaign of a dozen links; it's well developed and perpetuated through sockpuppetry. Yes, I do take a dim view. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| :] ] | |||
| </div> | |||
| ::::The method followed here, which resulted in the deletion of in-line citations added in good faith to articles (including featured articles) and even user sandboxes, was unfortunate. Further discussion of the point is at ] and the section immediately preceding it. ] (]) 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :::::I should note that because of this discussion I have added famousamericans.net to ]. If anyone feels this is inappropriate, please file a proposed removal at ]. If an administrator deems, with good reason, that the addition of famousamericans.net to the spam blacklist was inappropriate, I have no problem with its removal without consulting me. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
| ===Next steps=== | |||
| * Following ], ] was adopted as a ]. | |||
| Here's what I think needs to happen: | |||
| * A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space. | |||
| #We should give this another day to let other chime in on the value of these links; from the WikiProject U.S. Presidents discussion at least one regular editor has expressed support for these links in the past. | |||
| ] '''Technical news''' | |||
| #An admin should block the accounts I've listed above. Even if some of these links turn out to be useful, they've been added by sock/meatpuppets uncontrollably and in spite of requests to stop | |||
| * The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions. | |||
| #If there remains a strong consensus that all this stuff is junk, then I propose we start removing links here and on other Wikimedia projects. | |||
| #Once the links are removed, I propose we blacklist these domains at ]. Again, that assumes consensus here. | |||
| #Articles: | |||
| ##] -- not notable; take to AfD | |||
| ##] -- probably not notable;<small></small> take to AfD for community discussion | |||
| ##] -- notable.<sup></sup> Article needs rewrite, however. | |||
| I estimate this cleanup may take 10 to 20 editor-hours. | |||
| ] '''Arbitration''' | |||
| Others thoughts? --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}. | |||
| ::*I'd agree with that, but it doesn't cover DGG's point above: "the articles supported by cites from any version of appleton must be reviewed, not deleted altogether, as they can generally be edited to what can be documented elsewhere..." bearing in mind that many of these links seem to have been added as "references" (when there was no external links section) when they were not actually used to source the article. That could take a long time to cover. ] (]) 03:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wouldn't expect to delete any historical articles. There are 100s of spam edits involved but none that I've sampled seem to be essential to any history articles' survival. I'm very much a historical inclusionist anyway; failure of an 18th century political figure to have his own web site doesn't mean there aren't a lot of references in the library. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::* Pputter has put a sort of explanation/justification for what he is up to at ]. I haven't examined the detail. ] (]) 15:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*I ran into ] inserting links to a Klos book and website that assert that ] is really the 10th or 11th president of the United States. Damslerset was adding the link to every article on anything named for ] (one of the earlier Presidents) s/he could find, so you might want to do a Google search for "Stanley L. Klos" just within Misplaced Pages to look for other links we've missed so far. I think I reverted all of Damsleret's edits at the time, but will double check tonight. I support blacklisting this site. ] ''']''' 00:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*PS Just ran ''"Stanley L Klos" site:en.wikipedia.org'' on Google and found about 430 hits, ] ''']''' 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Miscellaneous''' | |||
| :/me dusts off some old tools: | |||
| * A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ] | |||
| ::Total count: 1371 en: 1112 de: 125 ja: 29 fr: 32 pl: 7 it: 8 es: 32 pt: 17 zh: 3 fi: 2 no: 3 he: 1 ] | |||
| :those are current numbers of links to famousamericans.net. Im removing those on en now. ] 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Would it be worth taking this to ]? They could set it up as a cleanup drive to review articles that cite Appleton's and/or Virtualology. Clearly a personal site containing personal edits to material sourced from an unreliable encyclopedia is not a RS, so there are good grounds for going through them systematically and checking them off - rather than simply deleting the links, which would leave articles with no indication of potential unreliability. ] (]) 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's a good idea, Gordon. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::::In the meantime, I've started on cleaning up the 275 or so other domains besides famousamericans.net listed at ]. So far, most of the citations I've removed have been to ]' self-published book and hyping his somewhat ] view that America had a number of other Presidents besides those that Started with George Washington. Technically this is true, but these Presidents of things like the Continental Congress were essentially chairmen, not major executive figures. I've felt little guilt in deleting them and the statements they've "supported". The more I look at this stuff, the less impressed I am. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 02:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{center|{{flatlist| | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| }}}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 --> | |||
| == user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation == | |||
| I've rolled back the ones I could (about -150 links). Let me know when the spam count on de and en have dropped to ~100 or so so I can run a spamsearch to check other projects and small wikis. ] 03:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :] is causing some damage again at es, by continuing the spam and recreating the article in the talk space.—] (]) 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| repost from archive: | |||
| The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither. | |||
| No need to block any users or worry about deleting the links. Virtualology existed before Misplaced Pages and will continue with you blocking your users from referencing the site's online content. Just make sure you get all of them out and be sure to post a notice somewhere that you are banning the citation of all the Virtualology sites, a page on Virtualology, a page on Evisum and a page on Stanley L. Klos the founder. | |||
| I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ]. | |||
| We tried to clean-up the mess fairly and honestly with proper citations to our sites adding to your body of knowledge and by the way all these "death star links" links have netted the company a whopping $200 a month in Ad revenue and no Books sold as they sold out a year ago. We tried to follow an administrator's guidlines asking for help through several volunteer editors. | |||
| '''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) '' | |||
| Additionally, Mr. Klos has reviewed this page, and although in complete disagreement with your historical assessment that 10 Presidents of the United States did NOT serve before George Washington he throws in the towel. He does suggest the next time you visit the the National Archives be sure to take notice of the Treaty of Paris that ended the War with Great Britain signed, Thomas Mifflin, President of the United States in 1784 which starts off their exhibit ( here is a direct link - http://images.virtualology.com/images/5068.jpg)or just go to the Journals of the Continental Congress online and search President of the United States and write off those hundreds of historical treaties, documents, letters and Proclamations signed President of the United States too! After all, freedom of speech was guarenteed under the Constitution of 1787 not the Constitution of 1777 (which created the Perpetual Union and these ten Presidents) in the "Bill of Rights" It is most appropriate you silence what the Lady from NJ calls, unimpressive work, which by the way is about to launch a new Presidential Musuem in Norwich Ct. honoring thezs forgotten Presidents from Misplaced Pages. | |||
| * : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version | |||
| * : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page." | |||
| * : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template). | |||
| * : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}} | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary. | |||
| * JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached" | |||
| * : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary. | |||
| * : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention. | |||
| * : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate. | |||
| * : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate." | |||
| * At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page." | |||
| ** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.) | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it". | |||
| * ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa'' | |||
| By the way A.B., did you know your State is the home of one of these President's of the United States who was held hostage along with the entire government of the United States in 1783 by its own military. The president called out the Pennsylvania Militia to free them but they refused to show. Another future President negotiated their release from Independence Hall and they fled to Nassau Hall in Princeton NJ never to return again. All the letters and documents reguarding this incident, including the order staying the execution of the mutineers, were signed President of the United State -- see EliasBoudinot.com But there were no Presidents of the United States before George Washington and Lincoln never used the Constitution of 1777 as the crux of his case on July 4, 1861 to wage war as the southern States broke the Perpetual Union ratified under the Articles of Confederation. | |||
| * Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template. | |||
| As for you burning the links, Mr. Klos has asked the volunteers to stop cleaning up the references to the sites (as explained on my user page)or adding any more improvements to wiki sites despite our protests and honest attempt to work with your team to insure both sides of the question be explored and biographies properly cited, Heil Wiki! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><br /> | |||
| * Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.". | |||
| <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small> | |||
| * JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}} | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing. | |||
| * At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit. | |||
| --- | |||
| :My ''"state"'', eh?? | |||
| * At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI. | |||
| :--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation. | |||
| As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mr. Klos wants to know if Misplaced Pages would like a complete list of all the domains in the virtualology Project so you may completely blacklist all the company sites from your encyclopedia? One in particular | |||
| ::whose content is copied but that is not cited is the online Edited Version of Peter Force's American Archives. Please advise as he seeks only too cooperate with this remarkable educational endeavor even if it means being "black listed" for your hundreds of users citing his content over the last several years. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><br /> | |||
| ::<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small> | |||
| :Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::As one Florida Company and Resident to another Florida Company and resident Mr. Klos asked me to provide you with this first installment which is primarily historical. | |||
| ::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Reposted above from archive, see ] | |||
| :::andywarhol.org, aaronburr.net, abigailadams.net, abraham-lincoln.org, abrahamclark.com, airforce1.org, alexander-hamilton.org, alexandergrahambell.org, alexanderhamilton.org, alphonsecapone.com, americanarchives.net, andrewcarnegie.net, andrewjackson.net, andrewjackson.org, andrewjohnson.org, andrewmellon.org, anthonywayne.org, arthurmiddleton.com, arthurstclair.com, arthurstclair.org, articlesofconfederation.com, articlesofconfederation.org, babe-ruth.info, battleofantietam.org, battleofprinceton.com, battleofyorktown.com, benedictarnold.org, benjaminfranklin.org, benjaminharrison.org, benjaminrush.com, betsyross.org, bookertwashington.org, buttongwinnett.com, cabinetroom.com, caesarrodney.net, calvincoolidge.org, carterbraxton.net, catherinethegreat.org, charlescarroll.net, charleslindbergh.org, charlesthomson.com, chesterarthur.com, civilrightsmovement.com, clarabarton.org, clementcmoore.com, constitutionalconvention.net, csaconstitution.com, cyrusgriffin.com, danielboone.org, danielwebster.org, declarationofindependence.info, demosthenes.com, dolleymadison.org, dwighteisenhower.org, edmundrandolph.org, edwardrutledge.com, egyptianmummy.com, eisenhowerdollar.com, elbridgegerry.com, eleanorroosevelt.org, eliasboudinot.com, elizabethcadystanton.info, elizabethi.com, elizabethmonroe.org, emancipationproclamation.org, equalrightsamendment.net, ernesthemingway.org, fallofsaigon.com, famousamericans.net, federalistpapers.org, federaltaxreturn.com, ferdinandmagellan.com, fortduquesne.com, forthenry.net, fortnecessity.org, fortpitt.org, francislewis.com, francislightfootlee.com, francisscottkey.org, franklindroosevelt.org, franklinpierce.org, franklinroosevelt.org, frederick-douglass.info, frederickremington.com, frenchandindianwar.net, gaiusjuliuscaesar.com, galleryoffame.com, george-washington.org, georgeacuster.com, georgearmstrongcuster.com, georgeclymer.com, georgemarshall.org, georgemason.net, georgepatton.net, georgeread.org, georgeross.net, georgetaylor.net, georgewalton.com, georgewashingtoncarver.org, georgewythe.net, geraldrford.org, gettysburgaddress.org, gottliebdaimler.com, grovercleveland.org, harrietbeecherstowe.info, harrytruman.org, haymsalomon.org, henryclay.net, henryclayfrick.org, henryhudson.org, henrylaurens.com, henrymiddleton.com, herberthoover.org, himalayamountains.com, honuswagner.info, honuswagner.org, isocrates.com, jamesagarfield.com, jamesbuchanan.org, jamesecarter.net, jamesfenimorecooper.com, jamesgarfield.org, jameskpolk.org, jamesmadison.info, jamesmonroe.net, jameswilson.org, jeffersondavis.net, john-adams.org, john-marshall.org, johnadams.info, johnaudubon.com, johndrockefeller.org, johnfkennedy.org, johnhancock.org, johnhanson.net, johnhart.net, johnjay.net, johnmorton.net, johnpauljones.net, johnpenn.com, johnqadams.org, johnquincyadams.info, johntyler.org, johnwitherspoon.com, josephhewes.com, josephpulitzer.com, josephstalin.org, josephwarren.com, josiahbartlett.com, juliawardhowe.com, jumonvilleglen.com, karlbenz.com, kinggeorgeiii.com, lewismorris.com, louisiana-purchase.org, ludwigvanbeethoven.org, lyndonjohnson.org, manhattenproject.com, marquisdelafayette.net, marthawashington.org, martinlutherkingjr.info, martinvanburen.org, mayflowercompact.org, meriwetherlewis.org, millardfillmore.org, millennium911.com, monroedoctrine.net, museumofnaturalhistory.org, napoleonbonaparte.net, napoleonbonaparte.org, nathanielgorham.com, northwestordinance.org, notaxationwithoutrepresentation.com, oliverwolcott.com, peterstuyvesant.org, peytonrandolph.com, philiplivingston.com, pierrerenoir.com, plymouthrock.org, popepiusx.com, presidentiallibrary.org, rebelswithavision.com, richardhenrylee.org, richardnixon.org, richardstockton.net, robert-morris.com, robertelee.net, robertelee.org, robertfkennedy.org, robertfulton.org, robertlivingston.net, roberttreatpaine.com, rogersherman.net, rooseveltdime.com, rutherfordbhayes.org, rutherfordhayes.com, samueladams.net, samueladams.org, samuelclemens.org, samueldechamplain.com, samuelhuntington.org, sirwinstonchurchill.org, sittingbull.org, sojournertruth.com, stegosauria.com, stephenhopkins.com, stjoanofarc.info, susanbanthony.net, teddyroosevelt.net, thedeclarationofindependence.org, thelibertybell.org, theodoreroosevelt.net, thomas-jefferson.org, thomasaedison.org, thomasalvaedison.org, thomasheywardjr.com, thomaslynchjr.com, thomasmckean.com, thomasmifflin.com, thomaspaine.info, thomasstone.com, treatyofparis.com, treatyofparis.org, treatyofversailles.com, tyrannosaurusrex.org, ulyssessgrant.net, ulyssessgrant.org, undergroundraiload.com, unitednationscharter.com, unitedstatesconstitution.info, usbillofrights.com, usconstitution.info, uspresidency.com, vietnamwar.org, virginiaarchives.org, virginiadeclarationofrights.com, virginiadeclarationofrights.org, vladimirlenin.com, walteredisney.com, warmuseum.net, warof1812.net, warrengharding.org, williamclark.org, williamellery.com, williamfloyd.net, williamhenryharrison.org, williamhooper.org, williamhowardtaft.org, williamhtaft.org, williammckinley.net, williammckinley.org, williampaca.com, williampenn.org, williamtaft.org, williamwhipple.com, williamwilliams.com, wolfgangmozart.com, womansuffrage.com, woodrowwilson.net, worldwari.org, worldwarii.org, zacharytaylor.org, <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><br /> | |||
| :::<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small> | |||
| JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page: | |||
| ::::Here are my posts as discussed above | |||
| ::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::1. There are hundreds upon hundreds of citing of FamousAmericans.net and its subsidaries incorrectly over the years on Wikipeida by various authors. These need to be corrected to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, edited by ], ] and ] Six volumes, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887-1889 here are just a few examples at famousamericans.net: | |||
| :::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities. | |||
| :::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. | |||
| :::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} | |||
| I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP. | |||
| ] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::William Tilghman | |||
| :It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (194 words) - 22:48, 19 November 2007 | |||
| ::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (I) | |||
| :::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*<nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/luciusquintuscincinnatuslamar/ </nowiki> | |||
| :::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (223 words) - 06:24, 20 November 2007 | |||
| ::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law. | |||
| ::::Thomas Dale | |||
| ::::* To who would this be a threat? | |||
| ::::*<nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/sirthomasdale/</nowiki> | |||
| ::::* Which law? | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 8 KB (1150 words) - 10:53, 20 November 2007 | |||
| ::::* In which country? | |||
| ::::James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier | |||
| ::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* <nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/jamesgambier/ </nowiki> | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (829 words) - 17:05, 20 November 2007 | |||
| :::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Charles Manly | |||
| :::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (332 words) - 23:18, 20 November 2007 | |||
| ::::::Wow, I am glad you asked. | |||
| ::::Civil War token | |||
| ::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store. | |||
| ::::... the spot.". Virtual American Biographies at www.famousamericans.net. Retrieved June 23, 2006. The quote found its w... | |||
| ::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down. | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1325 words) - 11:44, 22 November 2007 | |||
| ::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong. | |||
| ::::George Baylor | |||
| ::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (473 words) - 03:25, 23 November 2007 | |||
| :::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maria Zakrzewska | |||
| :::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (302 words) - 16:36, 23 November 2007 | |||
| ::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Edmund Zalinski | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (418 words) - 20:40, 23 November 2007 | |||
| ::::Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, II) | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (300 words) - 23:01, 24 November 2007 | |||
| ::::Samuel Morris (Philadelphia, I) | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 1 KB (201 words) - 23:02, 24 November 2007 | |||
| ::::John Morin Scott | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 4 KB (611 words) - 17:40, 25 November 2007 | |||
| ::::Roger Morris (British Army officer) | |||
| ::::..., 1760 ending French rule in North America.<nowiki>http://famousamericans.net/rogermorris/</nowiki> | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (388 words) - 10:42, 26 November 2007 | |||
| ::::Thomas Penn | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1030 words) - 11:23, 26 November 2007 | |||
| ::::James Hall (paleontologist) | |||
| ::::|url=<nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/jameshall1/</nowiki> | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 7 KB (1006 words) - 15:31, 26 November 2007 | |||
| ::::John Curtiss Underwood | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (419 words) - 01:40, 27 November 2007 | |||
| ::::Mary Clark Thompson | |||
| ::::*<nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/myronholleyclark/</nowiki> | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (463 words) - 21:28, 27 November 2007 | |||
| ::::John Trumbull | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1302 words) - 21:17, 27 November 2007 | |||
| ::::Noël Brûlart de Sillery | |||
| ::::*Article, FamousAmericans.net | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (352 words) - 10:07, 28 November 2007 | |||
| ::::Westerlo, New York | |||
| ::::...is named after Rev. Eilardus Westerlo (<nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/eilarduswesterlo/</nowiki>). | |||
| ::::Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (772 words) - 05:55, 30 November 2007 | |||
| ::::OR Like this - http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofwomen/MARIANANDERSON on Marian Anderson - Misplaced Pages, the 💕 - | |||
| :and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::or like this | |||
| * I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::http:// virtualology.com/apbaronstow/ on http://en.wikipedia.org/Baron_Stow | |||
| *:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room who ]? | |||
| *::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]? | |||
| *::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations? | |||
| *::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations? | |||
| *::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::These references need to be be cited properly | |||
| * Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}. | |||
| ::::2. There is use of sentences and paragraphs directly from Famous Americans.net and other Virtualology sites that are NOT cited with a "reference note" nor are there any references whatsoever to Appleton's or Virtualology so here we add it as a reference as a direct numerical citation unless the Article has no "footnoted" citations and only general references. Then I just add it to the list on references. | |||
| :* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]: | |||
| {{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}} | |||
| ::::3. In terms how the reference is listed, if there is a "footnote" it shows in the order as it appears. If there is no "footnote: then it is listed alphabetically. | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}} | |||
| {{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}} | |||
| :* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::4. As for putting the wrong person in the reference, I will be sure to double check the names in the future. | |||
| ::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged. | |||
| ::::Now I realize you and the other Wikipedians are doing a fabulous job on monitoring this thr project. Please advise how we may mutually correct this to everyone's satisfaction as it needs to be corrected. Thank you | |||
| :In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{ab}} | |||
| *This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == An inappropriate template being added to many pages == | |||
| *{{userlinks|Oct13}} | |||
| A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::From ]: | |||
| :::::''"Then, again - I'm curious what your figures for "relevance" are here:"'' | |||
| :::::*"''</nowiki>"'' | |||
| :::::*''""'' | |||
| :::::''"] (]) 18:34, 9 December 2007 :::::(UTC)"''<sup></sup> | |||
| :Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It was an error at <nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/johnbanister/</nowiki> which was the father in the first paragraph and the son in the 2nd who is the suject of the Wiki page. Agreed the Article should have been improved and properly linked -- Like I said we will double check in the future. The reference however added to the reads information not only on the subject but his father of the same name. | |||
| :I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{unsigned2|06:10, 10 December 2007|Pputter}} | |||
| :: |
:The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
| A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Oh Yes as far as academic references you slighted above, well Mr. Klos' are meager but here they are: | |||
| :Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| BA - American Studies, MA – Communications and Ph.D. in Communications & Marketing at St. Peter's College, Idaho State University and The Pennsylvania State University respectively . MBA Adjunct Professor and Lecturer - MBA BUSINESS AND THE MEDIA, MBA EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP AND MBA ENTERPRENEURSHIP - Wheeling Jesuit University, WV; MARKETING & FINANCE, Georgian Court College, New Jersey; COMMUNICATIONS, The Pennsylvania State University; BUSINESS AND PROFESIONAL SPEAKING, Idaho State University. Director of Communications NASA's Classroom of the Future 1999 to 2004, West Virginia Independent College Board of Directors; Wheeling Jesuit University MBA Board of Directors & James Monroe Foundation National Advisory Board. | |||
| ::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— ] ] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| For the record I think what you are doing to this internet education pioneer is unjust. You should be helping him get the proper credit for the citing of his 8 years of internet education work and not blacklisting him. Mr. Klos, however, prefers peace over contention and asked me to handle this due to a personal challenges that have reset the bar on child custody law in Pennsylvania. | |||
| ::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.— ] ] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction == | |||
| I am sorry Deb, myself and Donna didn't correct the links properly. We are merely volunteers, not paid who were just trying to clean-up the Virtuaology citings and give Mr. Klos proper credit for his work. We apologize for creating a death star (still not sure what that is) and will aide you in anyway to correct it. We do not have any way to help you with the hundreds of people who cited his work over the years, sorry. All he asks that if it is used on your site to please cite it properly or remove it. | |||
| {{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction. | |||
| Let me know if you want the other domains names. Keep up the good work, we use your site all the time especially with the kids homework. Pat PS - In May someone in your group told Donna to follow the find a grave system in citing and that is how all this started. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->--] (]) 12:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small> | |||
| As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br> | |||
| :My concern is that this action wasn't put in front of MilHist or Bio projects for lengthy discussion. We could have created an efficient process. I have no doubt that removing spam is essential. I have no dispute with requiring a link directly to Appletons as opposed to the FamousAmericans.net site. Perhaps a few bad editors were making these links a career. But I was using FA.net as reference long before I was using en.wikipedia.org. I have some loyalties to what Mr. Klos (with whose name I was unfamiliar until this morning) has been doing for years. I just wish this self-described "death star" behavior had been preceded by a posted notice of intent and this discussion allowing the page editors to create their own solution affirmatively. ] (]) 14:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::], I tried to spread as wide a net as I could, then centralize this discussion in one place. I left notices about this discussion on these pages: | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::I also left notes on the talk pages of the editors who had been most involved in discussion of these links. | |||
| :This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::While the famousamericans.net domain was blacklisted a day or so earlier than I would have preferred, I believe the very meat or sockpuppets who have complained so bitterly here somewhat forced our hand by increasing the pace of their link additions over time, notwithstanding requests otherwise. 1500 links across multiple projects and growing -- that's out of control. | |||
| ::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on. | |||
| :::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion. | |||
| :::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block. | |||
| :::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back. | |||
| :::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] backlog doin' great == | |||
| :::Also, as noted here and on other noticeboards, there are reliability problems with this material. Certainly the links I removed were low quality and sometimes supported totally irrelevant, sometimes incorrect statements to articles added by the spammers. | |||
| I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along. | |||
| :::I don't know what else to tell you. Ultimately, this is all about preserving the reliability and integrity of our encyclopedia in a collision between its goals and the desires of Mr. Klos' business. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just left a belated note at ]. <br /> | |||
| ::::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Call for mentors == | |||
| It was our fault as voluntary editors to Virtualology since 2001 we saw the hundreds of links all throughout Misplaced Pages of famousamericans.net and they were listed incorrectly as references and external links. We started trying to seek them out but Donna got the idea to just go through the Appleton's content starting with the A's and add as external links where missing, change were they existed and add missing Famous Americans creating “stubs?” why Deb concentrated on the content taken from Mr. Klos’ book which sold out a while ago and he just decided to put it online - http://stanklos.com/chapter1/. | |||
| There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| We got some conflicting advice early on from wiki monitors. First we were told no external links but use it as references. Then we were told we had to cite the actual reference sentence. Then we were told to add content and cite. Then we were told to not add original content but rewrite. Since the task was so daunting - 25,000 edited biographies we had other people help and the above was all mixed up as it came to different voluntary editors from different edits. You have to have this discussion somewhere, no? We do not have the coordination system you have. | |||
| :I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ] ] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all. | |||
| :I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| Mr. Klos just wanted to make his sources available to Wiki users and we wanted them cited properly. | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal == | |||
| We are sorry for not following the protocol although we did list the revised Appleton's (many fictitious biographies were eliminated and others expanded by the way) as we get at least one or two emails like these below a day: | |||
| I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]: | |||
| On John Penns Birth Date You Said he was born on Mary 17, 1741 is it supposed to be May? | |||
| (keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Or | |||
| {{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| James G. Blaine was a Senator from Maine, not Massachusetts. | |||
| * '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Heritage Foundation == | |||
| For years, as there are errors in this historic text and we research it and make corrections and admit we have a backlog of about 100 . | |||
| There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Deleted contributions request == | |||
| We did do, however, a source on the page directed to us by one of your administrators. | |||
| {{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Finally, it is important to note that the bulk of the citations (which were all over the board due to urls that are so dynamic ie -- benjaminfranklin.org/susanbanthony.net/vietnamwar.org or alexanderhamilton.org/johfkennedy.org/vietnamwar.org all got to vietnamwar.org and the combinations are limitless so wiki users references were all over the board with our references. | |||
| ::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] == | |||
| It was an honest attempt to share information of the 25,000 biographies to Start, do proper references to what was already in your system for years and get some recognition for the Forgotten US Presidents which is Mr. Klos’ passion. We are sincerely sorry we made such a mess of this and caused all these very busy people so much trouble. Once again will cooperate in any cleanup efforts but ask that future use of the sites as references by your many wiki users be done properly. | |||
| {{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| --] (]) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small> | |||
| :Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I see that URL-based links to Appleton's Cyclopedia are now blocked and are being mass-deleted. I became aware of this because ] is on my watchlist. Appleton's Cyclopedia was a principal source for that article, cited in March 2006 by ], and removal of the reference to it left an error message in that article (and a void in the sourcing for the article). I've restored the citation, but without the URL. However, this is hardly the only article where this was used as a source. Is it reasonable to bar all good-faith references to Appleton's Cyclopedia because of the spam issue? --] (]) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yikes -- it's always a bit daunting to frustrate probably our best editor in an editing dispute (not that she isn't always very gracious and easy to work with). | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person == | |||
| :::Orlady, you can request whitelisting of specific links (not the whole domain) at ]. Good faith requests from established editors such as yourself are routinely approved. --22:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks for the whitelisting suggestion. (I'll try to ignore the "probably our best" comment...) --] (]) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is another problem though; '']'' is known to include not less than 200 biographies of fictitious persons. So while it is a major source, it is also a very problematic source, and absent independent (contemporary or earlier) confirmation that a subject actually existed, we should not have article based principally on it. ] 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As it happens, ] is confirmed to have been a real person, and Appleton's is one of 4 separate sources cited in the short article about him. It happens to include some details that aren't in the other articles. That also seems to be the only article I've contributed to where the Appleton's citation was a valid good-faith reference. (I had been cognizant of the famousamericans/virtualology spam for some time...) --] (]) 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s> | |||
| :::::I agree that Appleton's shouldn't be relied on as the only source for an article. I can even agree with removing the link to the virtuology spamfarm and with reverting the edits of COI editors. But I very strongly disagree with a blanket robotic removal of all references to Appleton's Cyclopedia -- especially in cases where there is information in the article that was based on that source. Wouldn't you want to know where the information came from? Robotic obfuscation of this source is unhelpful and even counterproductive. ] ≠ ] 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking. | |||
| :::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. == | |||
| === ''Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography'' 1887-89. === | |||
| {{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Currently a user is deleting all references to ''Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography'', a contemporaneous source of information for 19th c. Americans much as ]'s encyclopedia is for 16th c. Italian artists. That is to say, it's not just some random website. Talking to the user produces ], so I've just left a brief note. I hope I may be spared any personal contact with this user. The . I'm struggling to insert the following footnote in the few little articles I watch: "Dates and other biographical information in this article are drawn from ''Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography'' 1887-89." The website with on-line text is spam-blocked here (no one need explain that to me, please). I am posting here because the user's boilerplate edit summary is "clean up, & remove link see WP:AN using AWB" ——but I see nothing here that would justify wholesale, unconsidered deletions; tomorrow another such a one will no doubt slap demands for references and citations on the same articles. At any rate I leave this in your ''capable'' hands. No need to involve me further, please. --] (]) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Now an IP {{IPlinks|2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B}} has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. ] (]) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Hide this racist edit. == | |||
| (I have now amended '']'', with published references, to bring its status more clearly into the open. That might have been the ''first'' administrative job; then based on it, ''discussion'' of effacing ''Appleton's'' from Misplaced Pages might have been opened. It's a matter of ''good administrative style'', really. Over and out. --] (]) 07:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| {{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people. | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Appleton's is not considered a reliable source; articles sourced to it are being gradually cleaned up and more reliable sources sought. --] | ] 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::absolutely so--notorious for inclusion of false biographies of non-existent people, see the article on it. This has been discussed here at some length. We are indeed removing all references to it, and all articles depending only on it for documentation will need to be carefully checked, and the facts in all articles using it as a source in any way re-verified elsewhere. ''']''' (]) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the explanation of this bot for ]. But what I dont understand how we are going to know that these are articles are unreliable once we have removed the references. As there is a real risk then why have we not added a warning template. We add a template for things like "lacks references" (as if readers cannot spot this). Surely this would be a good reason to add a subtle template (or better a ref that warns )that links to an explanation of the warning. I assume this has already been debated... ] (]) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::See ] and sub-sections]]. However just removing them all in a bot sweep does create problems. ] (]) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed: as I said above, it would have been preferable to check them off individually via a cleanup project, so the action needed (trivial delink vs. rewrite due to Appleton's being a major content source) could be dealt with, rather than casting them adrift where we can't find them. Is there a listing anywhere? Or can the bot change be undone? ] (]) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What would be ideal would be a listing of the 200 false entries, so we'd know the other 10,000 (or however many) entries can be used as sources. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::But the problem is that ''all'' of Appleton's is suspect. Those are the 200 known about, and the overall editorial standards weren't so brilliant. ] (]) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I get your point and saw that source, it just seems pretty ]-ish to be complaining about another encyclopedia's editorial standards. -- ]<sup>]</sup> | |||
| :I'm not sure I would have such a problem to using Appleton's itself, carefully, as a source. And I'm a bit worried that the supporters of this purge will go on to enact a pogrom against other, more-reliable but commercial sources, that are also linked from many Misplaced Pages articles because of their usefulness and reliability. But that's not what this discussion's about. Rather, it's about Klos and/or his followers spamming Misplaced Pages with links to a "revised" version of Appleton's, when we know Klos has an axe to grind about American history. I think we can safely rule such links as unreliable and remove them. —] (]) 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::David, as the person who first raised the issue of these links here (others had already questioned them many times on other talk pages and noticeboards), I just don't see much hunger for pogroms against other sources. As for more reliable "commercial sources", I see no problems with such sources. Most sources are ultimately commercial in some way when you get right down to it; .gov and .edu sites are just getting supported by tuition and taxes, not ads. Someone's got to pay the bill, after all. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 03:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, please see my response above to similar concerns. I don't know about any bot removals -- if that's going on, it's a big mistake, I think. In my own case, I've been working on ] besides famousamericans.net. In most cases, they've been added by ] accounts such as the much-aggrieved ] who complains so vociferously and bitterly above. 95% of the time, the citations I removed were supporting irrelevant, sometimes incorrect statements that appeared to have been added mainly as an excuse for a link. Feel free to ] to see the quality of the stuff I'm writing about. In a very few cases, I was concerned about removing the citation, so I left a {{tl|fact}} tag to alert other editors. On the whole however, with >1000 of these links already in articles across multiple Wikipedias and 100s more added each month, I personally better off halting the problem then taking anything of value to ]. | |||
| :Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Admin prohibits to delete copyright links == | |||
| Again, if there are any bot-deletions going on, I think it's a mistake. These links have to be removed ''judiciously'' one at a time. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::think most links were added in a spammy way to figures where there are much better sources; many were added to the reference sections (if there was no external inks section), further confusing the situation. Some no doubt have been added as actual source references by serious editors, and these are the ones that should be identified & better sources used. I'm sure there is no-one for whom Appleton's is actually now the best source. That's a lot of work potentially though & needs to be done by people with good sources available. The links removed can be identified from the bot history. ] (]) 23:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec2x)Also, if citations to some parts of Appleton's Cyclopedia were allowable then we'd face a perpetual danger of those 200 fictitious biographies being reintroduced. ] doesn't really have a clause for picking and choosing which parts of a reference to use. We might disallow a cite from ''The New York Times'' if the paper later ran a retraction on the story, since the retraction is documented. In order to use Appleton's Cyclopedia we'll basically have to wait for some reliable and vetted publisher to release a revised edition. Some people who lack proper qualifications have tried, but this website really shouldn't be referencing scores of important biographies that way. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites): | |||
| Wait, hold on here, there were thousands of Virtualology sites used as references before our volunteer editors began their efforts to clean-up a citation mess. The site has been up since 2000 and has been used as a reference and external link since Wiki began. | |||
| * | |||
| Additionally, no one, and I mean no work even in print layed out the birth of the US Presidency as Presidents of the Continental Congress of the United Colonies, Presidents of the Continental Congress of the United States and Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled until Mr. Klos started placing his research on line which was duplicated by your users from John Hanson not being the 1st President and the distinction between the Continental Congress and the United States in Congress Assembled. Most of this work was taken and never cited. Just review his book and web pages in Appleton’s on these men. Revisions abound there and elsewhere in the Appleton’s content. | |||
| * | |||
| Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. ] (]) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Now you delete all the links and references most of which have been there for years, content that was taken and cited from the Virtualology Project and want to say your users have taken it from their personally owned 6 Volume 19th Century Leather Bound Appleton's? If you are going to blacklist Mr. Klos and his work on the internet in this field for the last 8 years then be sure to remove the content. Golaith is welcome to squash this small fry called Virtualology but do not take its content without properly referencing even if you deem him a poor scholar. PLEASE --] (]) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small> | |||
| == 96.230.143.43 == | |||
| :The FamousAmericans.net Biographies that were worked on the last few months were famousamericans.net/samuelaaron/ to Barbour, John Merrett and are listed alphabetically. Also Deb did the Presidents of the United States (both constitutions) and Signers of the Declaration of Independence. These represent about 95% of your contentions that occurred in the last 3 or 4 months. The rest began from Wiki's inception to date and less then .1% were done by Virtualology Voluntary Editors. Hope this helps --] (]) 00:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| :<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small> | |||
| This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::To the contrary, campaign-spamming of these domains were a concern in March 2007 | |||
| ::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*] | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == StoneX Group Inc. == | |||
| Agreed, and Pat said May I believe that leaves your inception until March 2007. Additionally, you have the written record and can see not much occurred until recently. I have tried to giv you the major names that we edited but A.B. how many years was V's content used by Misplaced Pages without any incidents. To blacklist with notices on December 8 and done December 10th after all these years of sharing information was not judicious. Additionally the additions stopped as soon as one was challenged a couple days ago. If you take a hard look you will see the bulk of the infractions by the Voluntary Editors occurred on the names listed above in Appleton's and the Presidents and Signers. For this we are truly sorry -- it was errors of ignorance on what was permitted and correcting links not greed. additionally there are over 25,000 Biographies in Appleton's and this 200 number or .0008 is no reason to dismiss this as a reliable source. What is your ratio? Once again we remained under the same company and owners since 1999, to Blacklist over this and not remove the content with the references is also a wrong and two wrongs do not make a left. Once again we apologize --] (]) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I mean no personal disrespect toward Mr. Klos or his labor. The duration of his site is not relevant here. His work simply doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's ] guideline because he is not a recognized expert in the field of history. I have a degree from an Ivy League university in history, but I'm not an expert either, and it wouldn't matter whether I had started a website on the subject fifteen years ago or today. Editors sometimes make a mistake and try to cite something that fails to satisfy ]. This website's standards ''do not'' endorse a response of ''leave the citation until a better replacement can be found.'' Instead we take out the unsatisfactory source as soon as we identify it as such. We'll supply replacements when we can. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I’m concerned about the page at ] | |||
| To dismiss Appleton's is a mistake and any good scholar knows it. Additionally, Wiki has been using and citing this content since its inception. The only reason why it is being blacklisted now was its content was fed to Wiki these last few months incorrectly (with snow shovels to boot). | |||
| There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| This probably would never have occurred if Mr. Klos was not embroiled in personal challenges and took his eye off this Virtualology endeavor. He asked us to work with Misplaced Pages to “fix it”, if possible, but protect the proprietary content. For Wiki to use Virtualology and the edited Appleton's Content without the proper citation is wrong. To justify this action after four years of deeming the content an appropriate reference is also wrong. What percentage of Wiki content is fictitious? Is it more then the .008 your editors are quick to criticize the Edited Appleton’s for? The point is this blacklisting of the Virtualology Project and the edited Appleton’s references are more akin to book burning then a scholarly edit of the historical record. Look at the record and you will find virtually no editorial involvement of Virtualology in Misplaced Pages before the Spring of 2007 and to repeat ourselves, your writers have been using our content since your inception. --] (]) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Permissions Removal == | |||
| {{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. Thank you. — ] ] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hmmm, while the behavior of a few editors certainly looks like spamming and COI, I very much disagree with blacklisting the site and robotically removing all references to it. While there are some problems with Appleton's Cyclopedia, most of its entries are just fine. I would leave the robotic edits to simple reversion of edits made by suspect users. I find it deeply troubling that it is being removed from articles willy-nilly where it was in fact used as a source for the information. I would much rather have that very clearly indicated in the article rather than have the source obfuscated. ] ≠ ] 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ftools is back! == | |||
| ::Pputter I look at our for the first 5 months of 2007, I see perhaps one handful of links added by neutral editors; contrast this with massive quantity of links you added. Here are your numbers: | |||
| ::*Edit counts for each of your accounts ''that we've identified so far:'' | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::**]: | |||
| ::*'''Total edits made by PPutter's accounts: 1218 edits''' | |||
| I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Edits made to Klos-related article by Pputter's accounts: | |||
| ::**Edits made to ]: 143 | |||
| ::**Edits made to ]: 22 | |||
| ::**Edits made to ]: 10 | |||
| ::*'''Net edits to Klos-related articles: 175''' | |||
| ::*'''Net edits to other articles: 1075''' (all related to link additions that I've seen so far) | |||
| :{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::These do not include promotional your edits to other Wikipedias.<br /> | |||
| :Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Understood, but once again the edits were on the what I discussed earlier all the A’s | |||
| == Block appeal for ] == | |||
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | |||
| {{atop | |||
| Aar-Ada Ada-Ale Alg-Amh Amh-App App-Ash Ash-Azp | |||
| | status = unblock denied | |||
| Aar Ada | |||
| Aaron, Samuel | |||
| Abad, Diego Jose | |||
| Abadie, Eugene H. | |||
| Abascal, Jose Fernando | |||
| Abasolo, Mariano | |||
| Abbadie, | |||
| Abbadie, Antoine Thomson D | |||
| Abbe, Cleveland | |||
| Abbett, Leon | |||
| Abbeville, Claude D | |||
| Abbey, Edwin Austin | |||
| Abbey, Henry | |||
| Abbey, Richard | |||
| Abbot, Abiel | |||
| Abbot, Abiel | |||
| Abbot, Benjamin | |||
| Abbot, Ezra | |||
| Abbot, Francis Ellingwood | |||
| Abbot, Henry Larcom | |||
| Abbot, Joel | |||
| Abbot, Joel | |||
| Abbot, Joseph Hale | |||
| Abbot, Samuel | |||
| Abbot, Samuel | |||
| Abbott, Austin | |||
| Abbott, Benjamin | |||
| Abbott, Benjamin Vaughan | |||
| Abbott, Charles Conrad | |||
| Abbott, Edward | |||
| Abbott, Gorham Dummer | |||
| Abbott, Horace | |||
| Abbott, Jacob | |||
| Abbott, John | |||
| Abbott, John Joseph Caldwell | |||
| Abbott, John Stephens Cabot | |||
| Abbott, Joseph Carter | |||
| Abbott, Josiah Gardner | |||
| Abbott, Lyman | |||
| Abbott, Robert Osborne | |||
| Abeel, David | |||
| Abercrombie, James | |||
| Abercrombie, James | |||
| Abercrombie, John Joseph | |||
| Abercromby, Sir Robert | |||
| Abert, John James | |||
| Aboville, Francois Marie | |||
| Abrahams, Simeon | |||
| Abreu, Maria Ursula Lancastro | |||
| Acamapictli, I. | |||
| Accault, Michael | |||
| Acevedo, Gaspar Zuniga | |||
| Acland, Christina Harriet Caroline Fox | |||
| Acolhua, Acosta I. | |||
| Acosta, Ceeilio | |||
| Acosta, Joaquin | |||
| Acosta, Jose De | |||
| Acosta, Santos | |||
| Acrelius, Israel | |||
| Acton, Thomas Coxon | |||
| Acualmetzli, | |||
| Acuna, Antonio Ochoa | |||
| Acuna, Cristobal De | |||
| Acuna, Juan | |||
| Acuna, Manuel | |||
| Adair, James | |||
| Adair, John | |||
| Adair, William P. | |||
| Adam, Graeme Mercer | |||
| Adams, | |||
| Adams, Abigail | |||
| Adams, Alvin | |||
| Adams, Amos | |||
| Adams, Andrew | |||
| Adams, Benjamin | |||
| Adams, Charles | |||
| Adams, Charles Baker | |||
| Adams, Charles Follen | |||
| Adams, Charles Francis | |||
| Adams, Charles Kendall | |||
| Adams, Daniel | |||
| Adams, Edwin | |||
| Adams, Eliphalet | |||
| Adams, Ezra Eastman | |||
| Adams, Hannah | |||
| Adams, Henry A. | |||
| Adams, Herbert Baxter | |||
| Adams, Isaac | |||
| Adams, Janms Hopkins | |||
| Adams, Jasper Educator | |||
| Adams, John | |||
| Adams, John | |||
| Adams, John | |||
| Adams, John | |||
| Adams, John F. | |||
| Adams, John Quincy | |||
| Adams, Julius Walker | |||
| Adams, Nehemiah | |||
| Adams, Robert If. | |||
| Adams, Samuel | |||
| Adams, Samuel | |||
| | result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. {{u|Aman.kumar.goel}} has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see ]). As you can see in the unblock request at ], they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, {{u|Ivanvector}}, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from ] and ] were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows: | |||
| And the B’s to Barbour, John Merrett stopped here: | |||
| :I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals. | |||
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | |||
| Bab-Bak Bak-Bar Bar-Bas Bas-Bea Bea-Ben Ben-Bid Bid-Bla Bla-Bol Bol-Bou Bou-Bra Bra-Bro Bro-Bro Bro-Buc Buc-Bur Bur-Byr | |||
| Bak Bar | |||
| Baker, William Spohn | |||
| Balam, Chilam | |||
| Balboa, Miguel Zevallo | |||
| Balboa, Vasco Nunez De | |||
| Balbuena, Bernardo De | |||
| Balcarce, Antonio Gonzalez | |||
| Balcarres, Alexander Lindsay | |||
| Balch, George | |||
| Baldwin, Abraham | |||
| Baldwin, Ashbel | |||
| Baldwin, Charles H. | |||
| Baldwin, George Colfax | |||
| Baldwin, Henry | |||
| Baldwin, Henry Porter | |||
| Baldwin, Jeduthan | |||
| Baldwin, John Denison | |||
| Baldwin, Joseph G. | |||
| Baldwin, Loammi | |||
| Baldwin, Matthias William | |||
| Baldwin, Maurice Scollard | |||
| Baldwin, Robert | |||
| Baldwin, Roger Sherman | |||
| Baldwin, Theoron | |||
| Baldwin, Thomas | |||
| Balestier, Wolcott | |||
| Balfour, Nisbet | |||
| Balfour, Walter | |||
| Balfour, William | |||
| Ball, Dyer | |||
| Ball, Ephraim | |||
| Ball, Thomas | |||
| Ballard, Bland | |||
| Ballard, Harlan Hoge | |||
| Ballard, Henry E. | |||
| Ballevian, Adolfo | |||
| Ballou, Hosea | |||
| Ballou, Latimer W. | |||
| Balmaceda, Jose Manuel | |||
| Balmaseda, Francisco J. | |||
| Balmes, Francisco Javier | |||
| Balta, Jose | |||
| Baltes, Peter Joseph | |||
| Baltimore, Lords | |||
| Baluffi, Gaetano | |||
| Bancroft, Aaron | |||
| Bancroft, Edward | |||
| Bancroft, George | |||
| Bancroft, Hubert Howe | |||
| Bandelier, Adolph Francis Alphonse | |||
| Bangs, Francis C. | |||
| Bangs, Nathan | |||
| Banister, John | |||
| Bankhead, James | |||
| Banks, David | |||
| Banks, Nathaniel Prentiss | |||
| Banneker, Benjamin | |||
| Bannister, E. M. | |||
| Banoini, Juan | |||
| Banvard, John | |||
| Bar, Benedict De | |||
| Baraga, Frederick | |||
| Baralt, Rafael Maria | |||
| Baranda, Pedro Sainz De | |||
| Baranoff, Alexander Andrevitch | |||
| Barba, Pedro | |||
| Barbace, Fesberto Caldeira Brant | |||
| Barbee, William A. | |||
| Barber, Francis | |||
| Barber, John Jay | |||
| Barber, John Warner | |||
| Barber, Mary Augustine | |||
| Barbosa, Januario Cunha | |||
| Barbour, James | |||
| '''Barbour, John Merrett stopped here''' | |||
| Barbour, John S. | |||
| Barbour, John Strode | |||
| Barbour, Lucien | |||
| Barca, Francisco | |||
| Barcena, Alfonso De | |||
| Barcena, Mariano De La | |||
| Barcia, Andres Gonzalez De | |||
| Barclay, Robert H. | |||
| Barclay, Thomas | |||
| Bard, John | |||
| Bard, Samuel Dickinson Hub | |||
| Barker, Fordyce | |||
| Barker, George Frederic | |||
| Barker, Jacob | |||
| Barker, James Nelson | |||
| Barker, James William | |||
| Barker, Josiah | |||
| Barksdale, William | |||
| Barlow, Arthur | |||
| Barlow, Francis Channing | |||
| Barlow, Joel | |||
| Barlow, Samuel Latham Mitchell | |||
| Barlow, Thomas Harris | |||
| Barnard, Charles | |||
| Barnard, Daniel Dewey | |||
| Barnard, Edward Emerson | |||
| :While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active. | |||
| :My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "{{tq|The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.}}". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked. | |||
| Or about 800 names from the beginning of meshing 25,000 biographies into Misplaced Pages database. You should note that over and over again we found not only sentences but complete paragraphs cut and pasted from these sites with no references. Add to this the Signors, Presidents etc and links to Counties named after them and yes we did do 1000+ names with volunteers making mistakes and redoing the same page several times. We did, however, seek a way to just do external links like find-a-grave and were advised the edits with references were the right way to go. As for Spain and Italy alot of the names in Appleton's had no English listings but they did have Spanish so we went there but in the same names. We saw it as a good opportunity for both of the Florida Internet Companies. We thought as you so eloquently stated that it was a “boon to your historical articles” We errered and if you look at some of the comments that one Editor noted, it looked like we were incorporating the references right from the A's and thought we were given a method on how it could be done properly. --] (]) 02:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :To reply to a comment a few posts above, our guideline is called ''reliable'' sources. Appleton's is not reliable: it contains hundreds of fictitious entries. A good scholar might use it judiciously, but Misplaced Pages does not have the resources to vet content in such a manner. The only practical solution for this website is to select which sources are generally accurate and accept them as citations indiscriminately. Various permutation of this discussion have occurred many times in this website's history. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Now, ''there's'' a well-informed and judiciously balanced assessment of ''Appleton's Encyclopedia'' by our learned reference critic. "''While there are some problems with Appleton's Cyclopedia, most of its entries are just fine.''"Indeed, I might say "'''While there are some problems with ]' ''Lives'', most of its entries are just fine.''" You'd all think I was a bit of a popinjay, wouldn't you? Well, ''Appleton's Cyclopedia'' needs no introducing to anyone competent in the C19 American biography field. All mentions of it are currently being stripped from Misplaced Pages. More thoughtful and responsible editors are now forced to move the ''Cyclopedia'' references into footnotes, where they are less exposed to thoughtless monkeying, and no references to on-line text are possible. You should be alerted that this might appear to outsiders like myself very like administrative incompetence. I don't need to be drawn in at any level: this post is FYI only. So, do as you like—— as if you had to be ''invited''! As you were. --] (]) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wikisource has a handful of Appleton's articles as well as discussion of the problematic material. There's also a link to Appleton's content at the ]: | |||
| :* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :*:You need to re-check. , AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::*] | |||
| :::* I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean ''now'' but I did not from the original posting. ] 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is {{tq|we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing}}, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates {{tq|someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them}}. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. ] (]) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:@], ] from AKG copied over:{{tq2|Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "{{tq|However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.}}" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for ]), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. ] ] 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. ] ] 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention ] would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it ]ing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with {{u|Ivanvector}}'s assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the ] that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual ''also'' had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. ] (]) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''': I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that ] applies here. ] (]) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I warned AKG ] for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.] (]) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::To quote what I had said then, "{{blue|I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing.}}" I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there ''were'' multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add ] on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and ] on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. ] 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. ] (]) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::: Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. ] 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. ] (]) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from ]. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. ] 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes. | |||
| *:I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than ''not'' agreeing to it. -- ] (]) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Yes, this is also my concern. I would have ''thought'' that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well ''outside'' that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. ] 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. ] (]) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::: I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. ] 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—] <small>]/]</small> 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :*If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ] (]) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::*What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—] <small>]/]</small> 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. ] 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. ] (]) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. are are recent examples from this noticeboard. ] (]) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as ''punishment'', but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. ] (]) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. ] (]) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per {{u|Ivanvector}}: i.e. dependent on {{blue|a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction}}. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. ]'']''] 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I find myself agreeing with {{U|Black Kite}} - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. ] (]) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. ] (]) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. ] (]) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. ] (]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). ] (]) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:<s>I would tentatively '''support''' with the TBAN they have now agreed to.</s> I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. ] (]) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support <small>(NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case)</small>. Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''': Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. ] (]) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage: | |||
| {{Talkquote|After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from ], I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping {{u|Yamla}}, {{u|The Kip}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Caeciliusinhorto-public}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|Vanamonde93}}. Thanks ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| - ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Would they also consent to the ] topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::(replying to Durova after ec) Say what? I thought the whole idea behind using a wiki to build an encyclopedia was precisely to harness the resources of the masses to vet the content. It is preposterous to to even suggest that ANY source can be used "indiscriminately". Even the best sources contain errors. Simply because this has been debated in the past (and never completely resolved) is not a reason to proceed as if it has been. ] ≠ ] 03:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is why ] and ] work in tandem. Our standard is ''verifiability, not truth'' among sources we regard as generally reliable. Take your complaint to the policy and guideline pages and see whether you can work out a better standard than we already have. Many have already tried and I see no fresh argument here. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of ] and ], but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. ]] 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, and that (''verifiability, not truth'') is precisely why it is absurd to go around simply removing any mention of Appleton's as a reference -- even when it was in fact used as the source of the information. What we ask is that people provide a source for the information they contribute. If a better quality source can be found, then that should be preferred -- but to simply obfuscate where the information came from is just plain stupid. ] ≠ ] 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. ''']''' (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *Very, very '''weak support''' on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support, but''' only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — ] ] 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under ]. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. ]] 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - At the end of the day, the ] has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. ] (]) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --] (]) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. ] (]) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. ] ] 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Import request == | |||
| We did our homework, despite some editors above maintaining the contrary. Without giving away too much, There are 202 known fictitious biographies such as Pierre de Vogué (http://famousamericans./jeanpierredevogue/) and Vicente y Bennazar (http://famousamericans./andresvicenteybennazar/ ) from the research Virtualology has done on the Encyclopedia. It was traced to one employee who was paid by the article and thus his work has been thorough researched over the years turning up the 202. | |||
| Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| Most importantly, the BULK (approximately 180 of the false sketches) found are written on obscure European scientists who supposedly travelled to the America’s to study natural history. Examples of sketches include, the biography of Charles Henry Huon de Penanster, (famousamericans./ charleshenryhuondepenanster/) identified as a French botanist, whose bio parallels Nicolas Thiery de Menonville (whose genuine biography also appears in Appleton's). Nicolas Henrion's, (famousamericans./NicolasHenrion/) a French scientist listing reports that he arrived in South America in 1783, when Asiatic cholera was in full bloom. The epidemic first broke out in South America only in 1835. Miguel da Fonseca e Silva Herrera, (famousamericans./ migueldafonsecaesilvaherrera/) supposedly was a gold medal Brazilian historian, from the historical institute of Rio de Janeiro in 1820 but the society was not founded until 1838. Some good references on the topic are: | |||
| :I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators'_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — ] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
| == Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 == | |||
| Barnhart, John H. "Some Fictitious Botanists." Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 20 (September 1919): 171-81. | |||
| Dobson, John B.. "The Spurious Articles in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography—Some New Discoveries and Considerations." Biography 16(4) 1993: 388-408. | |||
| O'Brien, Frank M. "The Wayward Encyclopedias", New Yorker, XII (May 2, 1936), pp. 71-74. | |||
| Schindlir, Margaret Castle. "Fictitious Biography." American Historical Review 42 (1937), pp. 680-90. | |||
| ] this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). ]] 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The rest of the boigraphies are IMPORTANT historical accounts of exceptional men and women whose deeds in the Americas were notable at the very least. These are a exceptional additions to the Misplaced Pages Project. It is wrong to blacklist these sites PS YOU HAVE TO ADD THE NET TO THE LINKS AS THEY ARE BLACKLISTED --] (]) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. ] (]) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Many people host information on the Internet that is accurate, but insufficiently vetted to satisfy Misplaced Pages's reliable sources guideline. So far as I'm aware, your endeavor meets Misplaced Pages's definition of self-published work. As such, in order to be citable the endeavour would need to be overseen by someone who has recognized expertise in the field of history. That requirement hasn't been satisfied. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 08:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators == | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that: | |||
| ===Where do we go from here?=== | |||
| Based on everything I've seen, I become ever more confident of the assessment that the vast majority of these links were spammed, often very cynically to irrelevant articles, notwithstanding the pleadings of various sockpuppets above. Even if you believe Appleton's is a quality source, the links added usually provided were to articles that nothing not already included in the article and the citations added by the spammers (not regular editors) frequently supported either odd factoids or obvious stuff that needed no citation. I invite supporters of this source to step through diffs in my recent ] to see for themselves just how junky most of this stuff was. | |||
| {{ivmbox|1= | |||
| we respectfully request you run a comparison of the content of the Virtualology sites with the content of the Misplaced Pages Articles as then you might understand how much of the Virtualology content has been duplicated on Misplaced Pages --] (]) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The ] are amended by adding the following section: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| ; Coordinating arbitrators | |||
| The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators. | |||
| Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work. | |||
| The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include: | |||
| Nevertheless, I must say that I am disappointed in the way this has all unfolded. I had hoped the link removals would be made judiciously with care taken to find replacements, verify no link was needed and or add {{tl|fact}} tags. Based on having dealt with citation spam many times before, I estimated above that this would take many hours. Instead I see some others making ] using semi-automated tools and a host of frustrated regular editors complaining. Spam mitigation should always be a background task around here with care taken not to disrupt our encyclopedic content and ongoing editing. | |||
| * Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters; | |||
| * Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators; | |||
| * Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters; | |||
| * Organizing related correspondence into case files; and | |||
| * Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions. | |||
| A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator. | |||
| What's the best way to fix this? One option would be to temporarily whitelist the domain, revert the hastier edits, then properly remove the links. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| }} | |||
| What do others think? --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Having restored the Appleton's Cyclopedia reference (sans url) to ] twice in the last 12 hours (see my comments above regarding the good-faith nature of this reference), I believe that the baby has already been thrown out with the bathwater. --] (]) 05:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Yes -http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Return_J._Meigs%2C_Sr.&oldid=41702868 - started in March 2006 with FamousAmericans.net online content and there are thousands more, most not even cited. Instead of working together on correcting our "Spam" mistake our content is no longer cited, Virtualology is blacklisted and error messages warn of spyware associated with Virtualology sites is flashed when people try to utilize our 8 year old online legitimate sources. How can this possibly happen? Mr. Klos supported this Wiki project from the beginning and even commiserated with your founders, when his content started being used to born Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| How does one retrieve the communication between Wiki and the following names since they have been deleted? | |||
| *User:24.73.72.214: 20 | |||
| *User:24.94.139.230: 198 | |||
| *User:66.93.248.72: 9 | |||
| *User:71.42.169.190: 9 | |||
| *User:72.77.10.31: 10 | |||
| *User:97.96.197.9: 104 | |||
| *User:72.187.245.33: 2 | |||
| *User:Cedarkey1: 205 | |||
| *User:Damserlet: 393 | |||
| *User:Natnews: 17 | |||
| *User:Pputter: 242 | |||
| *User:Solknats: 9 | |||
| --] (]) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Just a heads up I removed all links to famousamericans.net for a complete record of pages that contained links to it please see for a complete listing of all interwiki links please see ] 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| So here is one part of our case, close to a thousand references of Virtuaology content cited with no "spam" claims whatsoever. How can you just unilaterally do this to content that has been referenced by Misplaced Pages as Virtualology's for so many years? A. B., this is more grevious then our errors as you know better. --] (]) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't removing the references without removing the material sourced from the references a violation of ]? If the source actually is bad we should be removing the bad information with it, and not letting it linger. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 06:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Evaluation''' As this subject is not my specialty, I am going to check with some actual specialists in historical reference sources tomorrow, and get some idea of the current status of Appleton's. I would be very surprised if the method of compilation met even minimal 20th century standards of accuracy. My impression is that it is used when there is nothing better. But there is-- not free or course--but much more reliable and in thousands of libraries. | |||
| ::There are two. The older one is ''Dictionary of American Biography'' 1928-1937, and supplements through 1985. Most college libraries and large public libraries will have it in print, locations at. --not all libraries will have all the supplements. I do not know if it is online. | |||
| ::the newer one, greatly preferred if available, is ] Oxford Univ press, Print and online. Print in about 1800 libraries--essentially every college library and many large public--a listing can be found at . (if you enter your zip code it will show nearby libraries) Online in at least 200 libraries and library systems--partial listing at . They have a personal subscription at $25/month. | |||
| ::They each have about 20,000 entries, but not all the older ones were carried over into the new edition. Obviously, the new one is the more accurate for the ones it covers, and will have an up to date bibliography, listing both primary sources and selected secondary sources. I would regard anyone with a full article in each as unquestionably notable. My impression is that it is less scholarly that ODNB, but full up to the demands of WP. | |||
| ::there is a convenient free online bio of the day at . Today's it's Fiorello H. La Guardia. There is also, free access to the biographies in the current monthly update at The lastest is october 2007, and contains 43 articles--most but not all are in WP, but some are without good references. Between them, that's 800 articles a year available free. This would be a convenient way to help build the encyclopedia.''']''' (]) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| For that one bio where there was unique info. from appletons--are you sure its correct? For articles where it wad listed as one of many sources, the question is whether it was actually used as a source, or just added as a spam reference. ''']''' (]) 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Who can be sure what's ''correct''? In dealing with biographies of long-dead people who weren't tremendously famous, no source is the "gold standard." The best I can do is compile information from multiple sources, write up the most reliable-seeming info I can find, identify my sources, and hope that someone else will improve the article later if they find more reliable information. For ], there are several short entries in biographical dictionaries and encyclopedias, but all are bare-bones entries missing a lot of the significant details that were in the much longer "Appleton's" entry. The Appleton's bio does have one detail that seems to be erroneous; it gives a birthdate of 1734, which does not agree with any other source I have found (accordingly, I have changed the birthdate in the article to 1740). However, it's still unclear to me if he was born on December 17 or December 28; few sources give the full date, and the ones that do are not in agreement. There's a long and extensively sourced bio on a family history site at http://www.meigs.org/rjm90.htm that has seemingly good content, but I've found some errors on that page (such as the year ] was born -- since the son was a US Senator and a state governor, that particular date is verifiable). In a web search I found an amazing Google Book PDF (which I downloaded) called ''The Magazine of American History with Notes and Queries'', by John Austin Stevens, Benjamin Franklin DeCosta, Martha Joanna Lamb, Henry Phelps Johnston, Nathan Gilbert Pond, William Abbatt. A.S. Barnes and Company, 1880. Vol. IV. That book has a lot of seemingly good info on Meigs (and other topics, mostly related to the ]), but 19th century historiography was not exemplary, so I don't know how much I can trust it. Another Google Book PDF is ''The Connecticut Magazine: An Illustrated Monthly'' of 1906, containing a laudatory article about the illustrious Meigs family -- another item that may or may not be reliable. My bottom line: often there is no bright line separating reliable sources from fatally flawed sources. --] (]) 02:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I admit this is OT, but in the case of Meigs above, would you include a footnote in the article to state that ''Appleton's'' states his birthdate is 1734? The reason is that one or more users will come to the Misplaced Pages article thinking that ''Appleton's'' has the right date, not suspect that it is wrong & either (1) cite the wrong date or (2) change the date in Misplaced Pages, thus making it harder to keep the article correct. -- ] (]) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Appleton’s Famousamericans’ biographies, have been extensively expanded in many areas even adding primary source documents that expel historic myths more troublesome then incorrect birthdates. For instance, John Hanson is purported to be the 1st President of the Continental Congress by the Smithsonian’s touring Presidential exhibit (http://images.virtualology.co/images/5057.jpg - co should be com but it is blacklisted). Primary sources Like Hanson’s letter of thanks to the 2nd President of the United States in Congress Assembled, Thomas McKean for serving before him in Hanson’s office improve the biographies immeasurably. (http://images.virtualology.co/images/5054.jpg and 5055.jpg ) Hanson was never a President of the Continental Congress, it was dissolved March 1, 1781 and the Library of Congress still confuses that simple fact. Isn’t this the magic of Misplaced Pages? Good intention minds working together to produce an almost Dialectic process to arrive at the “truth” on the human experience. Exceptional concept really yet quick to dispel work of like minded individuals from a different era. The irony here is amazing. | |||
| Additionally if you look closely at Misplaced Pages’s '''sites''' on Hanson you will find they heavily relied on the Famous Americans and “President Who? Forgotten Founder’s” content without giving proper credit to the authors. In fact Wiki’s entire series on the Presidents under the Articles of Association and Articles of Confederation all draw heavily on Virtualology online content which has been there since 2001. Moreover, there are many images that were taken ( ie http://en.wikipedia.org/Cyrus_Griffin from CyrusGriffin.com) by the Wiki encyclopedia incorporated in these and other Appleton's works as their own. Misplaced Pages did what Virtualology couldn’t do, getting biographies highly placed in the search engines. Today these Continental and United States in Congress Assembled Presidents are being referred to in the proper manner established by the Virtualology Project in 2001. Go back and try to find this content before Virtualology’s work on the early Presidents. It wasn’t there on the web found only briefly and incomplete in some obscure Depression Era books and a very good book on Samuel Huntington from the 1970’s. Even today the Library of Congress website errs with their – “Letters of the Delegates Database” that lumps all Presidents and their legislators under the United States in Congress Assembled with the Continental Congress. Virtualology cleaned up the timeline and Wikiedia gave it worldwide wings thanks to the genius of your founders. | |||
| Despite what some editors maintain, “quasi” scholarship is not just on the Klos “axe to grind” Presidents but in many discipline content published on Virtualology. The content has been morphed into your sites and credit, if any, was improperly given. Here Virtualology made its mistake and should have taken this up before the Voluntary Editors move forward, clumsily on their own. | |||
| As for Appleton’s it is a crucial resource to researchers as well as dealers in '''identifying primary source letters, documents, manuscripts and early print ephemera'''. We cannot begin to express how vital a reference it is having some obscure land grant or 18th century letter trying to discern its importance. Appleton’s is a key source to discern who the signers are and what impact this unknown primary source had on them and their rhetorical situation. Appleton's is a staple in primary resource research field -- a great starting point. Interestingly enough, on Tuesday the Magna Carter, the Holy Grail of Historic Documents, should break all sales records fetching over 30 million dollars. I am sure Ross Perot, a rare document collector, has Appleton's in his libary. One of your administrators noted that you have thrown the “baby out with the bathwater” which is an understatement. Appleton’s been online since 2001 within the Virtualology Project and is important scholarship that should be embraced as an excellent source to begin the Dialectic Process on over 25,000 noteworthy individuals with their biographies filled with important historic content on people, places and things. --] (]) 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (Responding to A.B. above) I think what we have here is an example of why automated edits are a bad idea unless there is a general both on what the problem is and the best solution. No source is infallible, & even unreliable sources need to be cited sometimes to explain how popular misconceptions entered the popular consciousness. Then there is the issue that those ] from ''Cyclopedia'' will perpetually reappear in Misplaced Pages because newbie editors will re-submit articles on those individuals out of ignorance. In short, I agree that these links should have been handled individually by someone knowledgeable in the field; I didn't speak up before this because it took me a while to understand the problem here. Now I wonder if we have a bigger mess on our hands. -- ] (]) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I have not taken the time to read through this lengthy issue, but I will say at least as handled by ], this needed to be handled differently. a chainsaw was used where a scalpel was needed. Not only should the info have only been tagged with <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> instead of removed (unless it by some odd chance was a BLP), but Betacommand removed info cited to a different source, removed an additional tag for the other source, and then left a second ref to the FamousAmericans as an empty. And Betacommand has responded less than properly to complaints about this (including not including a link to this discussion in his edit summary). I have no problem with SPAM being removed, but please learn how to do it properly. ] (]) 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry I am only human and do make mistakes, it was an accident that that was removed. For some reason I thought that this was on ANI not AN and that is why there was a miss-link. also that was corrected as soon as it was brought to my attention. ] 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::So does that mean you went back and fact tagged everything instead of removal then? ] (]) 17:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I guess the silence unfortunately means "no". (If this conclusion is wrong, a correction would allow us to move forward without recriminations.) -- ] (]) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Checklist created=== | |||
| I've created a checklist ] from the historical linksearch ] just provided. If anyone wants to work through the articles systematically, it can be done from there. ] (]) 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proposal=== | |||
| Could someone who understands the Betacommand bot argument for removing Appletons update the article for Appletons - it is nowhere detailed as the stuff above. I cannot believe we have changed unreliable poorly sourced material into unreliable unsourced material. I prefer the former. Particularly if the wiki Appletons entry explained how unreliable it was and that article was clearly linked to each time it was used a reference. Couldnt we use a clever bot to do that? ] (]) 10:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===COIBot=== | |||
| I missed this discussion, though I did see that famousamericans.net was added to the blacklist. There is a large list of domains above, and I think all these reside on server with IP 66.45.34.101. I have added that IP to COIBot, who will now report every time a website with that IP is added. Check ] every now and then. | |||
| Let me know (e.g. on my talkpage, or here) if I have to create some reports on external links, the linkwatcher database COIBot accesses is not too old, but still may contain quite some interesting information. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :So this can't be used as reference anymore? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 03:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::COIBot monitors, a.o. linkadditions of links that are under discussion , it does not revert, nor block, the addition of links. Or are you referring to the point that famousamericans.net has been blacklisted, if I saw that correctly, and it has not been removed in the meantime, yes, that means that it can not be used as a reference anymore. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh OK. Well I don't really care for the blacklisting decision, but I'll find the correct forum to gripe in. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Examples of Edited Appleton's Content As Requested === | |||
| According to the Virtualology site, which is a copy & attempted revision of the notoriously unreliable Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, its revised biographies are arranged separately, as explained there "If you would like to edit this biography please submit a rewritten biography in text form . If acceptable, the new biography will be published above the 19th Century Appleton's Cyclopedia Biography citing the volunteer editor." from, e.g. However, I see no firm indication that this is in fact the case, and would like to see some examples of this. Ones directly from Appletons are not copyvios. Ones modified from Appleton's are copyvios, because the Virtualology site is copyrighted. Unfortunately, the original ones are also known not to be reliable or accurate.( It is additionally plagiarism to use them with just the tag at the bottom, without indicating that the entire article was copied and what the exact source is.) I therefore doubt that any material from this site can ever be incorporated in Misplaced Pages. If unmodified, they are not reliable. If modified, they are not public domain. DGG (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here are a few Edited Samples | |||
| John Baptist Lamy Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnbaptistlamy/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.jhectorstjohndecrevecoeur/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Johannes Megapolensis Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johannesmegapolensis/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Mary Odin Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnmaryodin/ - 27k - Cached - Similar pages Manjiro Nakahama Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.manjironakahama/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Charles Francis Baillargeon Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons charlesfrancisbaillargeon/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Finley Rathbone Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfinleyrathbone/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages John Taylor Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johntaylor3/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Cornelius O'Brien Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons corneliusobrien/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Louis Amadeus Rappe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons louisamadeusrappe/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sister Margaret Bourgeois Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons sistermargaretbourgeois/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Lucretia Maria Davidson Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.lucretiamariadavidson/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Ximenes Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscoximenes/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Francis O'Mahony Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfrancisomahony/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Adams Webster Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnadamswebster/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Flores Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseflores/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Jarque Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscojarque/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Michael Joseph O'Farrell Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.michaeljosephofarrell/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Caballero Y Ocio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons juancaballeroyocio/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Garcilaso de la Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons garcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sebastian Garcilaso De La Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.sebastiangarcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Maria de Salvatierra Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanmariadesalvatierra/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Diego Garcia de Palacio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons diegogarciadepalacio/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Edgar Philip Wadhams Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons edgarphilipwadhams/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Agustin Davila Y Padilla Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons agustindavilaypadilla/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Andr6s Avelino Caceres Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.andr6savelinocaceres/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Paul de Chomedey Maisonneuve Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.pauldechomedeymaisonneuve/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Escalona Y Calatayud Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseescalonaycalatayud/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Lorenzo Hervas y PANDUR0 Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons lorenzohervasypandur0/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Anne Joseph Hyppolite Malartie Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons annejosephhyppolitemalartie/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Mother Marie de L'incarnation Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.mothermariedelincarnation/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Atahualpa, Or Atabalipa (ah'-ta-oo-al'-pa) Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.atahualpaoratabalipa/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Dred Scott Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.dredscott/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages John Joachim Zubli Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnjoachimzubli/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Elzear Alexandre Taschereau Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons elzearalexandretaschereau/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Joseph Kain Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnjosephkain/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Felix De (ath'-a-ra) Azara Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.felixdeazara/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Felipe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons felipe/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages Santa Rosa OF Lima Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons www.santarosaoflima/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco De (cor'-do-vah) Cordova Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscodecordova/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Frederic Auguste Bartholdi Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.fredericaugustebartholdi/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Bernardo Diaz Del Castillo Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons bernardodiazdelcastillo/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Malta Capac Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.maltacapac/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Miguel Grau Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.miguelgrau/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Orellana Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.franciscoorellana/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Nepomucene Neumann Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnnepomuceneneumann/ - 26k - Cached - Similar pages Alvar Nufiez (kah-bay'-thah-de-vah'-ka) Cabeza De Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons alvarnufiezcabezadeyaca/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Apostolos Valerianos Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.apostolosvalerianos/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdez Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.gonzalofernandezdeoviedoyvaldez/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages --71.42.169.223 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{spa|71.42.169.223}} | |||
| Here are three of the hundreds of Heavily Edited Appleton's | |||
| http://www.famousamericans/arthurstclair/ | |||
| http://famousamericans/williamrandolph/ | |||
| http://famousamericans/fernandomagellan/ | |||
| --] (]) 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{spa|71.42.169.223}} | |||
| I know they are SBL'ed the site is known not to be reliable. end of story. quit attempting to BS us. ] 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| BS BS Kettle calling ... | |||
| Not following this is BS -- | |||
| “Say where you got it | |||
| It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of the article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and the article itself must make that clear. | |||
| When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article. The edition of the book should be included in the reference section, or included in the footnote, because pagination can change between editions. Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books. Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view.” | |||
| We understand you being upset BUT your complete deletion of the source material's references is unprofessional at best. Doing it under the guise of Appleton's being an unreliable source is sophomoric, not scholarly. This is BS in its worst state, justifying one's mistakes. Virtualology admitted they followed an external link model of find-a-grave sidetracking their original effort to correct improper citings on Misplaced Pages. They erred and sought to correct it, still do as evidenced above providing information requested by one of your Adminstrators. --] (]) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :{{spa|71.42.169.223}} | |||
| == Death threats, privacy, telephone numbers == | |||
| This is an alternate account. I am an administrator here on the Misplaced Pages. A checkuser may be performed on this account to verify the truthfulness of this statement but I do ask that the sockpuppeteer account name not be revealed except with my permission. This account is ''not'' a violation of ]. In my time here, I have received numerous personal attacks and more than one threat of a lawsuit. More troublingly, I have received the occasional death threat. My real name and photograph has been posted on the attack sites, along with my location, though not my exact address. Recently, I have started receiving telephone calls that have their caller ID blocked. These are the typical "hang-up" calls and I am no longer answering the phone to numbers I do not already recognize. Occasionally, I get voice mails though these are always blank. I do not consider any of the death threats I have received to be at all serious. None that I am aware of were made by someone in the same country as me and I never had any reason to believe this was more significant than a teenage vandal ticked off because I blocked him or her. And it is entirely possible (indeed, almost certain) that these telephone calls which have started in the past week are ''entirely coincidental''. I am less happy with my real name and location, along with stolen photographs that are quite possibly not fair-use, being posted on attack sites. I'm considering changing my telephone number. Is this worth the effort? What other steps should I be considering? --] (]) 17:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Checkuser confirms the above does belong to an admin. ] (]) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Jeez. Whats the point, honestly. I don't understand people sometimes. Honestly, I would suggest a wikibreak, at least in terms of your admin acct. Let the storm die down. Sad it has to come to that, but it is what it is.↔]•] 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's been done before to disappear from one account and then reappear as an admin under another account. I suggest you contact one of the higher authorities if you would like to regain your admin access while remaining anonymous. ] (] • ]) 18:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, a user gaining admin access without an RfA would stand out like a sore thumb. If an admin is going to drop and come back, I'm afraid that they should work back through the ranks to become an admin again. Yes, it ''really'' sucks, but it's also the only way to avoid a red flag on the account. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree. In two examples some people on a certain site were able to figure out which admin had recently disappeared and then compared the editing patterns to figure out who it was. Maybe you could continue making edits with both accounts to throw them off the scent, though that there's a very fine line on what kinds of edits are allowable.. ] (]) 01:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Talk to your telephone company about logging the calls (they record the details) and your local police for advice regarding the caller(s) - that is what you pay your taxes for - especially in conjunction with the death threats. Talk to the service provider about the site publicising your details; if they do not have permission from the copyright holder they should not be able to post your picture (unless it was released under GDFL) and they may be violating their terms of service in publishing your information without permission (same problem about GDFL, though) or in a manner which might cause you distress. The perhaps co-incidental receipt of the silent phone calls and death threats can be cited. | |||
| :On-wiki, I suggest you WP:IGNORE/DENY, or take a break per Nmajdan. I wouldn't change account names - a new admin popping up without going through RfA is likely to attract attention, and there will not be that many recently inactive admins to sift through, from the off-Wiki sites. Sorry about your experiences, and I hope this has helped. ] (]) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you aren't already in contact with WMF, please communicate with them. Also I'd be glad to talk to you under whatever account you wish. Suggest you set up a gmail account for use in connection with Misplaced Pages volunteering because your location can't be traced from the headers. Best regards, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Please send email to me using your admin account. I am interested in this case, and I have some friends who are also interested. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'll contact the WMF in the next couple of days. EVula has a very good point, I talked to another admin who changed account names earlier this year and it didn't really do much to help protect his identity. For the record, I have never used an alternate account other than this one. I'll also start star-69'ing the dropped calls, though I doubt this will give me much information. Does that even work if the person only lets it ring once or twice and I don't pick up? To the best of my knowledge, my telephone number has never been posted in relation to my Misplaced Pages account, not anywhere. And I haven't had any hang-up calls today so hopefully it was all just a false alarm, though I am still concerned. I'll please ask people (including those off-wiki) not to speculate about my identity. I am sure I am not the only Misplaced Pages editor who has been in this situation. Also, while I am not thrilled with so-called attack sites posting my personal information or using pictures without my consent, I am ''far more'' concerned with what third parties do with that information. Anyway, if I choose to start editing with a new account, I will check with a couple of trusted people to make sure I am not being abusive. --] (]) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You can refuse calls that are callerid blocked, I would contact your phone provider about that. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 02:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the United States, at least, you can arrange a trap with the phone company if you get a civil restraining order. You'd document the exact time of each harassing call and you'd need to synchronize your own clock so it's accurate to the minute. I suggest you contact an expert for advice about the details. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I thought the timing issue was a myth, and the phone company knows regardless of when the call was. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's a question of correlating particular events. In the past I've had two weeks of evidence tossed out by the police because my clock wasn't synchronized with official time. They probably could have correlated it rather easily by shifting all the data two or three minutes, but some people refused to take that effort. Some jurisdictions try any excuse to avoid paperwork. While I was filing a report once I saw a woman turned away even though she was reporting a death threat. A minute later I spoke to her outside, we compared the fine print on our restraining orders, and she marched right back and compelled the clerk to take her report when she realized his excuse was invalid. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Reading this account, & having worked with ''real phone switch logs'', I suspect the problem is that either no one in authority understands how this works -- or don't care. Excuse me while I talk about some stuff that has little to do with either WP:AN or Misplaced Pages in general, but explains how this information gets recorded. | |||
| ::::: Phone switches are in effect computer servers, & keep a very detailed log of all of the calls that are handled by a given ]. The record is kept so that at the end of the month the phone company can bill you. However, to get access to these logs for any reason other than billing, there are many barriers. To start with, most of the information is stored on ], & the tape drives that could be used to read the data are in use; companies only have the minimum number of tape drives they need. Further, for various reasons (primarily to conserve space) those logs are encrypted, so they can't read them with a text editor like notepad or vi. (When I handled these records, I used a perl script that did the decoding, then search-&-printed all of the records in question -- which took as long as a couple of hours.) Despite all of this, it is theoretically possible to find out who called you many years before -- or as long as the phone company keeps the records. However, phone companies are not organized to provide that information at a moment's notice. (Remember: those companies are set up to handle providing customer service, & think about how well they do that.) In many cases, the people who handle the initial requests about calling info don't even know who handles all of those logs. I'm sure that's why a court order is needed -- to get the attention of a manager who has the clout to get the information. That's probably why most law enforcement agencies would trace calls -- it was far, far quicker than delving into the phone company beauracracy. | |||
| ::::: As for the question about "dropped calls", if I understand telecomm technology correctly, until you pick up the phone, no billing information is written. However, ISTR anecdotes about people being billed for calls they never answered; so if that if correct when some phones ring for a certain number of seconds, then a token charge will be written to the billing log on the switch. (There are several models of phone switches, all of which handle billing and pass voice data in different ways. And use one of the most unusual operating system I have encountered.) -- ] (]) 20:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Have you eliminated the more mundane possibility of telemarketers using ]s that dial too many numbers, leading to "call abandonment"? Do you get a lot of telemarketing calls? If you live in a country with an equivalent to the ] and have not yet added your name to it, perhaps you could do so as a test (though there might be a delay before it takes effect). I apologize if this idea is off base. ] (]) 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not offbase. Actually, I was just about to suggest that as the most likely cause. Hangup calls, blank voice messages, it fits the description of certain dialers perfectly. I had that problem for short while; a friend is an engineer for the phone company and confirmed. ] 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. The half-life of these dialer stalking can be between three to six months, if I recall correctly (but sometimes it will only last a week or two, as was the case for me), so changing one's phone number needs to be weighed accordingly. ] 13:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Many phone companies allow automatic rejection (or voicemail) for unidentified calls. My preferred ] carrier also allows me to shunt specific numbers directly to voicemail. - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I have been asked if I have eliminated the mundane possibility of telemarketers. I have generally ''not'' ruled out possibilities like this, though I receive fewer than four telemarketing calls a year on my telephone. That makes it less likely. I do have another question, though. If I decide to set up a new account with the goal of eventually receiving adminship on that new account, I would obviously have to be very careful not to violate ]. Would anyone consider it inappropriate if I did ''not'' disclose a relationship between the two accounts even during a request for adminship? I would happily inform the Foundation in advance (and would consider informing a couple of admins I particularly trust, if people believe it necessary) and would of course give up the admin bit on my current account in a manner which I felt did not interfere with my privacy. Specifically, not on the same day but in a manner which adheres to the spirit of the law, at the very least. Again, I'm well aware that setting up a second account imposes significant restrictions on what I can do under ]. --] (]) 19:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Help Please == | |||
| The story; An IP edited ]'s page with a comment of "please revert my edits" . Which I did wiht a note of "per request?". The IP then made another odd comment, which I also reverted as this now looked like trolling, and I said as much in my edit summary. The IP also made a comment on ]'s page, which looked okay, so I left it. ]. I asked the IP to log in as they clearly knew their way around and was told they would but were at work . Now I get a long diatribe on my talk page about my lack of good faith and newbie biting. More concerningly mentioning my Real Life name. . This is a different IP, but I have no reason not to believe they are the same person. They seem almost to be inviting checkuser. Help please, I'm uncomfortable with revealing my RL first name, and worried where this is going. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 09:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The IP address is {{admin|The undertow}}, per . ''']''' 11:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::So... what's going on? :s seems to be related ~ ] 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looks like {{user|The undertow}} attempting to make some sort of point about the treatment of IP editors, by his own admission. As always, proving one's point experimentally tends to lead to hurt feelings and unnecessary disruption like this. Best that everyone return to the 'pedia instead of playing around or indulging others' playing. It's probably unlikely to recur (but if it ''does'' recur, it will be looked upon very poorly). ]·] 11:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| OK, I get to go thru these, one-by-one. Which should we decide to address? Being fluent in Spanish, and having lived in Mazatlan for a year, it's common knowledge that Pedro=Peter. Juan=John, Jesus=Je-sus, and Mary=Maria. It's a simple worldwide translation of a first (not last) name. I have no prior knowledge that if a user decides to use "Pedro" that his name in real-life is Peter - that can only be affirmed by the owner. It's as common as calling "Jeff" as 'Jefe.' | |||
| As far as IP admissions, I made myself clear that I could not log-in to my account at work, as I have a strong password. But that does not supersede the fact that even IF I could, that I would expect different treatment. WP:POINT is disruptive. I made all aware of who I was and what IPs I was using, and clearly iterated that I would have been treated differently had I been logged in. If the diffs are scrutinized, anyone can see that since, as an IP, I was reverted, simply because I did not have my log-in at the time. Simply look at the diffs and realize that while others were having fun with a given topic, I was reverted for either being an anon, or not logged it. ANYONE can edit. ANYONE still can. And for those pushing policy, even registered users reserve the right to edit as anons (although this was not the case.) ] ] 12:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :So was not a good thing to revert. which seems to be your issue. The only thing I can see is that EVula should have reverted not me? The undertow, you've said again on my talk page you want to open an RfC on my behaviour. If that is your wish, please do so. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 12:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, I'd appreciate it if you would call me by my nickname. Just because Pedro is spanish for Peter I can't see how you assumed I therefore must be called Peter. Either way, that's out the bag now, but I'd ask you to use my nickname please. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Let's bring in context. Look at the diff you provided - it was about Lara and comments made towards her being attractive. Humor would dictate that it's actually funny for one to say "revert my edits!" And my sympathy runs deep for privacy. However, Juan is John. There is no way around that. I call my friend Peter, "Pedro", as it is the equivalent in both languages. I will not be punished for being bilingual NOR astute. Until you can PROVE that I had innate knowledge that you, Pedro, in real-life, were named Peter, you are simply placing blame on me, which is entirely unfair. ENTIRELY. If my girlfriend, say Maria, was on Wiki, and you called her Mary, it would not be a slight, nor a hint, nor an attempt to unmask her. Certain names are universal. And without causing you further discomfort, if my name was Dick, there is a really good chance you might be able to surmise that my real name is Richard - BUT ONLY IF I used Dick as MY nickname. Gerry Scott Kochendorfer. There is my fucking name. Half German and Greek. It's by no means a compromise, but it is CERTAINLY a way for me to make some sort of amends, outside of our own disagreements, which have been going on far beyond the 'nomenclature' controversy, which anyone could see. ] ] 12:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Your use of an ip as a "bad hand" account to disrupt and deliberately make vandalism edits. I would suggest you rethink your conduct and let's get back to work. -]<sub>]</sub> 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Show me any vandalism. I'm curious about it. Lara was praised for her picture, and I asked her to "revert me!" as an empathetic fan would. Show me vandalism. ] ] 12:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I answered on my ] in response to your post. -]<sub>]</sub> 13:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :So... bypassing all that stuff up top, I'd like to go ahead and state that I was about to revert the IP edit myself, but Pedro beat me to it. It frankly made very little sense to me, and it certainly wasn't the first time an IP I'd never seen had left me a bizarre message somewhere in my userspace; until I happened to be searching for my name on this page, it never occurred to me that it might be anything more than an anon editor being odd. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-profit organizations being urged to spam us about their organizations == | |||
| is an article urging non-profits to write their own Misplaced Pages entries. I e-mailed the editor, saying this:<blockquote>The most recent issue of Board Cafe had a tidbit urging people to | |||
| write articles about their organizations on Misplaced Pages!!!! | |||
| This is a major violation of our guidelines against Conflict of Interest, Autobiography, and Spamming/Advertisement. Such articles are killed off as quickly as they are spotted, and a repeat offender may find their (perfectly legitimate) organization blacklisted from ever being mentioned in the Misplaced Pages. | |||
| </blockquote>He responded thus:<blockquote>Michael, thank you for this email. I certainly understand your point. | |||
| Nonetheless, it's appropriate for something that is Misplaced Pages-worthy to get onto the site. Just as I encouraged people to put things onto Misplaced Pages, I also support Misplaced Pages's policies to eliminate illegitimate postings. The money that movie studios, for example, put into getting favorable Misplaced Pages entries for their movies and television shows is just part of the complexity | |||
| of Misplaced Pages, because we also value the fact that important nonprofit groups have initiated and monitor sites about themselves (examples: Red Cross, NAACP). | |||
| So whether or not you think we agree, I think we are kindred, pro-Misplaced Pages, anti-spam spirits. Thanks for writing. Jan</blockquote> He seemingly just doesn't get it. | |||
| --] | ] 21:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :And apparently we're the second most popular site on the net, according to them! Gee, bad news for facebook, the BBC and YouTube! Seriously though, thanks Mike for highlighting that and your efforts in trying to persuade the webmaster. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::He just doesn't seem familiar with the concept, just look at his response there he says that movie studios put money into getting favorable entries wich is clearly not true as all film and television articles are solely edited by the users themselves and if their reception was negative it will be reflected (see ] for example). Maybe somebody can explain ] to him in a manner that explains the difference between "worthy" and "notable". - ] 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here are some examples of some who have spammed the project; | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| --] (]) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::just a comment that I remarked on that talk page that in my view that some material placed by some of these groups was in fact highly appropriate, though they should have been more aware of our rules about how to have it added. ''']''' (]) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: we need to get real - trying to get a wikipedia article is ''just'' what I'd advise a non-profit to do if I was in the position of that author, you chance your arm and if it gets deleted, well you tried. We are never going to stop this, so we need to work on better ways to ''manage'' it and not the usual terrible unreadable policy pages - an honest to god short document that indicates best practice to organisations. --] (]) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::WP:BFAQ has advice that is just as relevant to non-profit organisations as businesses. Maybe though we should try a somewhat specialized version, with emphasis on the use of their web site, which such organisations generally think justified, not having understood the implications of GFDL. The main problem I've had in dealing with them is that, to put it bluntly, PR people at profit-making corporations are often more professional and more responsive. ''']''' (]) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Like DGG, I found external links added by a non-profit to be useful, but at the time, I didn't know what message to add to the user's talk page, but didn't want to add COI or spam templates. I've added info to the user's talk page (]) from a template I found via the links above, but not sure if it's appropriate or clear enough that COI applies to non-profits. ] | ] 22:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This user's one-year block (initially set by ArbCom, and then reset several times for vandalism and sockpuppetry, expired on December 10. I've removed the "blocked user" template from his userpage, but does anything else need to be done (i.e. logging the completion on the Arb subpage or something like that)? -]<sup>]</sup> 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, the template on his userpage doesn't actually do anything, and removing it doesn't either - there's still a block on his account. -- <span style="background: #EECCFF;">] <small>(] | ])</small></span> 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was not an indef block, it has expired. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 05:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There are two options; one is to organize support for an indefinite community ban, and the other is to let it go. I'd be very much in favor of letting it go; things have quieted down in that department and that's a good thing. ] 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I couldn't agree more; until there's some actual drama here, just ignoring the editor (especially since he hasn't edited since his block was lifted) is in the best interest of everyone involved. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 06:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Lir's history on Misplaced Pages predates me, so it's safe to assume there are a number of eyes on this account. If (to quote Chick Bowen above in this thread) we let it go, we can assume that she/he was grown tired with disrupting Misplaced Pages & moved on with his life, & stop thinking about him. If she/he immediately resumes his disruptive behavior, the account will be blocked indefinitely, & we can then discuss a permanent ban. Anything else would ]. -- ] (]) 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::So, to get back to my earlier question: When a user completes a long-term block, are there any clerical-type actions that need to be taken, or is the way that things are now the way that they should be? -]<sup>]</sup> 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Nope. Everything just reverts to normal. ] 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Wasn't sure where to ask this, so I figure I'd try here first. This person appears to be using their user page as a sort of Myspace page/sandbox. Not sure if it's against any policy, but it seems rather questionable at best. Should something be done about it, or doth I worry needlessly? :) -] (]) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I'd blank it and show him ]. He's violating that. If he isn't even be productive towards the encyclopedia, he should be blocked as well. -- ] (]) 09:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Well, ] just deleted the whole thing so it's a moot point now. -- ] (]) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Nay, not so, since it's been recreated. I think I see where this is going... -] (]) 00:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Deleted, blocked and deleted ] which was probably not a coincidence. -- ] (]) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == In furtherance of Jimbo's efforts to decrease drama == | |||
| In furtherance of Jimbo's efforts to decrease drama, I present here a comment by ] placed on another site: | |||
| ------------------ | |||
| ] (]) 17:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :While the sentiments expressed are perhaps admirable, I'm not sure how you expect to accomplish a ''decrease'' in wikidrama by reproducing something posted to that particular "another site" (well, at least you didn't link to it). I am disappointed, though, that you left out the wonderful bit of alliteration "..." —] 17:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Trying to get the drama out of human interaction is like trying to get stink out of a turd. ] 17:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, it's all froth. While a minority "wiki-war" (what a nice phrase) a vast (''peaceful'') army in the background is quietly getting on with building the encyclopedia. Some articles are casualties in the wiki-wars, but many more articles survive than die, and they can all be ressurected at some point. Though some are honey-pots, forever attracting drama and zombifying onwards towards the hypothetical end scenario. ] (]) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC) <small>There, some nice random rambling metaphorical philosophy to wash down the (actually rather insightful) post above.</small> | |||
| :::edit conflict I've replaced it to a diff link of when you posted it, partially to reduce the effort that would be needed if (as I cynically suppose is likely to happen) it is determined it should be oversighted, and partially because you've given no indication of permission from ]. —] 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just a question: Does his GFDL permission lapse if he is blocked indef? --''']''' (] - ]) 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, the ]'s grant of permissions is explicitly perpetual (and says nothing about Misplaced Pages's blocking policy in any case). <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] (])</span> 18:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Right, but WAS 4.250 is not the author of the piece, and Moulton did not post it to Misplaced Pages. —] 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Got it. Thanks. --''']''' (] - ]) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, we have no reason to believe we can repost that text, though perhaps a link to the original would be informative. ] 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec × ∞)Ah. Yes, I spaced out on Moulton not being the poster. So, I guess the answer is "maybe, maybe not". Glad I could clear that up. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— ] (])</span> 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The original, however, is posted to a thread which also contains posts that can be interpreted as attacks on users.—] 18:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :We already have an article on this: ]. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Articles with unsupported characters == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| These need deleting. These pages exist, brackets won't show up and it shows up on the as something that has text on it (3rd and 4th lines). — ]_] 17:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Talk to a developer. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WP::P&action=delete fails. —] 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm contacting someone to deal with it. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Moved to ], ] and ]. Do with them as you will. -- ] (]) 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Deleted. These were to ], ], and ], respectively. Someone will have to find and clean up inbound links manually; whatlinkshere does not work with broken titles. —] 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I deleted an inbound link to ] today (=]), since it was no longer working. I wonder if the database could still have the list of pages containing these links. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and ] == | |||
| User repeatedly vandalizes the article with unverified, original research and ] material. User appears to be the subject of the article. I've asked user to remove things they consider untrue, but instead user insists on a flatter piece for the article. User also appears to be using sock puppets, and has made threats and personal insults towards me, as well as challenging me to a fight. --] (]) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == More Congressional Edits == | |||
| I noticed an article at ] (found ) that discussed further congressional edits to Misplaced Pages, particularly at ], highlighting . I had a look at the contributions from the IP in question, ], and noticed a significant number of recent edits to the article on Congressman ]. In particular, , which was added today, appears to be a direct copy of the congressman's official website, found . As it's a government source, does copyvio apply? If not, does the article still need to be re-worded to avoid directly copying the text of a government website? | |||
| Since there is attention being given to this (US House of Representatives) IP and its contributions, and since it's 5:00 here and I need to leave for a while, I thought it prudent to note the issue here. Please move this comment to the correct noticeboard, if it does not belong here. Thanks! ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::My understanding is that information produced by a federal government employee and/or released by the federal government is considered public domain and exempt from copyright protection. Pages of members of Congres edited by known Congressional IP addresses (particularly if they can be linked to that members staff) need a CoI tag. ]] 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed. The article has already been tagged, so I will add the above notice to the talk page describing the conflict of interest. Thanks, ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Page move == | |||
| {{resolved|Page moved}} | |||
| Can someone move ] back to ]. I tried, but since the River Bandits was a page it won't let me move it. The team again changed names, cause they can't figure out what they want to be called i guess. Here is a ref. if necessary ] ] 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * Done. <b>]</b> 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **"Swing of the Quad Cities" is the oddest team name I've ever come across. ] 04:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == AfD backlog == | |||
| There is a long backlog on AfD right now going back to December 4. See ]. Admin attention would be appreciated. ] (]) 02:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I've got some time, I'll see what I can do to help. ]] 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Down to 170, we've made a dent at least. It was 230+ when I started working on it. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 05:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''*{{plainlinks|URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Mr.Z-man&namespace=4&year=2007&month=12|NAME=collapses}}*''' - down to ~150. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 07:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] is kinda gettin' clogged. Can an admin please go and "unclog" it? --] <small>]</small> 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Unclogged. - ] ] 02:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Carolyn Doran == | |||
| This is the subject of a current ongoing controversy regarding a former employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. The article is at ] and it should be watched for vandalism in reaction to the Register article. ]] 04:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Related to this matter, I've fully-protected ] and semi-protected ], as both had already seen some vandalism (it didn't help that the Wikinews article linked directly to her userpage, which I've since fixed). ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I tagged the talk page and two redirects as speedy deletes if someone wants to get them. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 06:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I really have a problem with the talk page being deleted. From what I looked at it, there was nothing in the talk page that warranted a speedy deletion. At least restore it to allow talk about the article, if one should exist. At least have it for a week or two. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Talk page restored by another admin. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::Even though I have expressed genuine doubts about the notability of the subject of the article, it is probably wise to keep at least the talk page undeleted for a day or two simply to diffuse the inevitable drama. ] (]) 06:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And a soft redirect was made to Wikinews. I issued the protection to the soft protected article, so it is up to Wikinews now. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I did a double-take on the soft-redirect due to the fact that at this time there's not enough reliable source for us to link to the Wikinews article. (If ''Washington Post'' runs a story blowing the whistle, I wouldn't hesitate to link to Wikinews--- I'd even say that we could probably write an article for C.D!) - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 07:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Incidentally, the ] article is sadly out of date and currently gives the impression that Doran is still an employee, doesn't mention Sue Gardner or her position, etc. If someone is in a position to clean that up using reliable sources, this might be a good time to do it. ] (]) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Since Risker's post, the problem he described has been fixed -- although I'd argue that the changes he advocated were not controversial & did not need reliable sources. -- ] (]) 22:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::''Everything'' needs reliable sources. ;) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 07:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Be my guest & start flagging non-controversial statements like "London is a city in the United Kingdom" or "Wyoming is one of the United States" with {{tl|fact}}, & see how long it is before someone starts invoking ] at you. ;) Now if you want to find a reliable source for those statements (I guess the Congressional act which made Wyoming a state would work for the second example), & add them to the article, I'd be honestly surprised if anyone objected. But now this thread is drifting into the hypothetical. -- ] (]) 19:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == PimpUigi account == | |||
| Hey guys. | |||
| I'm PimpUigi, and I noticed there is no email address attached to my username. | |||
| I can't log in, or change my password, or anything. | |||
| Can you assign my email address to it? | |||
| I should be able prove I am PimpUigi, as I have accounts on tons of other forums, and many people on those forums even know me in person. | |||
| To my knowledge I am not blocked. | |||
| My email address is ''<redacted>'' or ''<redacted>'' | |||
| It may be better to use the second one, as it will get CC'd to both email addresses that way. | |||
| Thank you for your assistance, and any info you can provide. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Do you mean {{userlinks|Pimpuigi}}? If you've lost the password, it would require a developer to change it, which they would not want to do since that account has only five edits, all from July. Why don't you just create a new account? ] 06:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unfortunately, since there is no e-mail attached to your username, there is no way to get back your account (for obvious security reasons). Sorry. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 07:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hmm. That's strange, as I've never edited anything. | |||
| I have no idea why my account would lose it's email either. | |||
| To my knowledge, I signed up, but never edited anything. I just kind of signed up, and forgot about it. | |||
| Can you delete the name, and then I can remake it????? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I looked at the five things it said I contributed to, and I've never seen them before in my life. | |||
| I'm worried my account has been compromised, or someone was impersonating me. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :Unfortunately, we have no way whatsoever to tell if you are telling the truth, since those edits are months old and the IP logs have likely expired. Sorry. Just ignore it and make a new account; if that one starts being bad, we'll block it, with no harm to you. --] (]) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == A point about the delete-a-page dialog == | |||
| * The delete-a-page dialog shows two entries with typing boxes: "Reason for deletion" and "Other/additional reason". As "Other/additional reason" is often full of a copy of the start of the page's text, it would be useful if two more alternatives were added to "Reason for deletion": "''To allow incoming move''" and "''Temporarily for history-merge or history-split''". ] (]) 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Or, you could just delete the auto-inserted text, which is what I do. I'm actually not a fan of the existing deletion page, as the summary comes ''before'' the dropdown when I tab through them... very frustrating. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] characters == | |||
| Please check the relevance of ]. Other characters like ] from Doom are available on Misplaced Pages. I'd be glad if ] would also be acceptable. ] ] 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :...why should we have the article, though? I appears that Kelly only appears in a single game, whereas Sanders at least appears in multiple books set in the ''Doom'' universe. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Those books are horrible and their mere mention on Misplaced Pages is a blight upon all mankind. Er, ahem, I mean, uh, just because she's in four horrible books that collectively probably sold less than a single video game (in this case, Doom 3) does not make that character inherently more notable than Sergeant Kelly. Quantity alone does not infer more notability. Personally, I'd nuke both articles - redirects are sufficient. --] (]) 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'll admit that it's been almost 15 years since I played ''Doom'', & that this entire thread properly belongs elsewhere, but I have to ask -- there were ''characters'' in that game? I thought the cast consisted of one guy with at least one firearm, & the creatures he killed. There was no plot to get in the way of the story! Merge, redirect, & insist on reliable sources for everything else. -- ] (]) 22:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There were no characters in the first two games. There we characters in the horrid books, and in Doom 3. --] (]) 00:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Those books were awesome. ] (]) 00:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Awesomely bad. The first one was marginally entertaining, the second two were bad, and the fourth killed my puppy. --] (]) 22:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Image for deletion == | |||
| {{resolved}} | |||
| Hello, ] is up for speedy deletion as of December 1, but the category has been deleted (because it was empty, the tag had been removed against policy though, after the expiry date) , can someone please look at the image and delete it if necessary thanks. ] (]) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the uploader adequately addressed the issue. Using the DVD cover as an example in order to illustrate porn in Japan, falls within the scope of fair use, and I think other admins felt the same. Otherwise, the image would have been deleted. however (which removed part of the fair use rational), labeling the removal of the template as vandalism, does not show good faith. The template states ''"Please remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern."'' That is what he did, so I have removed the template. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can see at ] and the user warning {{tl|uw-speedy}} how removing a speedy deletion tag from a page you created yourself is against policy, and considered vandalism (thus the warnings), also you can see at ] ''Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).'' Anyway if you accept to be the admin who is refusing deletion, please drop me a note so I can start a DRV as this is a common type of problem and a DRV on this kind of one would be useful, thanks. ] (]) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::With all due respect, but the image was never tagged with a CSD template, but with a disputed fair-use template; uw-speedy does not apply here, and you totally misread the policy and the templates. Now you have sent it to ], while there is nothing to review. The proper action would have been to nominate it for deletion at ]. Can someone close the DRV? <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Done. --]] 12:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Important reminder == | |||
| Hello, can I please remind everyone that removal of speedy deletion tags from pages you have created yourself is a violation of policy. I just realised many users do this, including admins, I may have myself also I can't remember, please be careful of this. I reworded the user warnings {{tl|uw-speedy1}} (2,3,4) to change '''article''' to '''page''' in order to conform with ]. ''Any user who is not the creator of a '''page''' may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this''. Often for example BetacommandBot tags images for speedy deletion, and users remove the warning themselves after having corrected the problem, however this is not allowed and is as bad as removing the speedy deletion tag from an article you created because you think you found reliable sources. , I think the confusion stems from the fact that sometimes users believe they know about fair-use images. They think "I have 10,000 edits I just made a typo in the article name, I will correct it", however there may subsist other problems (for example missing copyright holder name... many experienced users forget this). So I think we should just follow what the consensus on ] tells us: correct the problem, place {{tl|hangon}} on the page and ask Betacommand if he will reconsider. ] (]) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Is this a joke? ] (]) 23:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok I will admit not all the tags are speedy deletion tags, some are "relative-speedy" deletion, so perhaps this doesn't apply to those ones. But for example invalid fair-use claim as well as missing rationale are, see ], invalid fair-use rationale is not one however, so perhaps the problem is not as big as I thought, but still something to remember. If a page creator could remove the speedy deletion tag himself we might as well scrap the whole speedy deletion idea, so not a joke, but I did perhaps overstate the problem a bit. ] (]) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've never had a problem with people removing "speedy deletion" tags from images after they have fixed the problem. --] <small>]</small> 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed, it's only when ''all'' you do is remove the speedy tag that it becomes a problem; if an article is tagged with {{tl|db-bio}} and the author removes it and inserts a valid assertion of notability, that's perfectly fine (and if the policy says it isn't, then ]). ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 23:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :True, but you must remember it's the consensus that no distinction is made, so we must try to abide by it if possible even if we disagree personally. ] (]) 23:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think that is the consensus; EVula's description is closer to what has been standard practice by long precedent. Remember that policy pages are descriptive rather than prescriptive. ] 01:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::How about removing wrongly-added speedy tags? ] (]) 01:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::One of only many examples, yes. Jackaranga's original example, a bot-added tag about a specific problem with an image, is actually a good example of a situation in which the author's removing a tag is clearly acceptable. ] 01:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, if you fix a problem with your images, please remove the deletion tags. It saves a lot of time when going through and deleting the non-compliant ones. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Admin trial periods == | |||
| Has a system ever been used where trusted editors (who desire to become admins) are given admin tools for a trial period (a month for example), in order to test whether they would make good admins? If there is a more appropriate place to ask this question, let me know and I'll move it :). ] ] 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This has often been suggested, but never seems to get any agreement.--]<sup>g</sup> 02:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would think it useful if it were implemented. RfA is based around presuming what sort of admin a person would be...if they were given a trial for a week, their actions as an admin for that week could be reviewed and adminship decided on that trial period. There are negatives but I haven't fully thought them through. ] ] 02:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Would probably create more problems than be a benifit to wikipedia. Admin school seems to address using the tools, in an environment that will not harm the encyclopedia. see →]--] (]) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::All someone has to do is ''not'' do anything outrageous in the week they're a trial admin. Once it passes, they can go wild... ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The problem I see is that it would create a system where people have to go through 2 RFAs. Since we can't just hand out the tools to anyone who asks, we would need some sort of approval process both before and the process after to evaluate. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::(five edit conflicts - is this a record)I think it is a good idea and that existing admins should be subject to periodic review too. ] (]) 02:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(ec)All excellent points. It could be difficult to judge who to approve...and become too complicated. Periodic review sounds like a good idea though. ] ] 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Make it automatic: If you've been around for at least three months, have racked up at least a thousand edits, and ask for the tools, you get them for a month. After that month, there's an RFA to see if you should keep them. If you abuse the tools during the trial period, it's grounds for an immediate and permanent de-sysopping. --] (]) 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is actually an important issue. There is a huge backlog of admin hopefuls/candidates looking for mentorship, going back as far as October, from what I see. But there also seems to be little take-up from existing admins to adopt them. I look at RfAs, and see very few people I recognise. That, in itself, is no bad thing, because a lot of admin work, particularly clearing backlogs, does not show up on the radar of an average editor. However, I can see that a case can be made for "trusted editors" having limited tools to deal with patent vandalism either by blocking or page protection; this would release "full admins" to deal with issues such as sock-puppetry, edit-warring and the like, where a greater depth of experience would be useful. However, the position at present is that the admin tools are indivisible. It is difficult, and ultimately nugatory, to propose a hierarchy of admins; however, a little responsibility, properly transferred to editors in good standing, and subject to appropriate review, would be no bad thing, in that it would relieve admins of what is, ultimately, voluntary responsibility, and minimise some of the drama that seems to occur on a daily basis. --''']''' (] - ]) 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with EVula.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Up to a point. But all you have to do to become an admin is keep your nose clean. After that, as long as you don't hit the radar, you're home and away. Is that what we really want? --''']''' (] - ]) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: EVula makes a good point about requiring the RfA process. But the idea of bifurcating admin duties seems interesting. For instance banning a user or deleting a page are very serious actions, since if done wrongly, they can prevent useful content or users from participating. On the other hand, page-protection and semi-protection is easily reviewable and users of that feature could probably do with less scrutiny then those trusted with the block and ban buttons. Viewing deleted data and editing mediawiki pages is probably somewhere in between, since deleted data can have copyvio issues and mediawiki pages impact the entire encyclopedia. Also, I suspect the first comment will be that a less-vetted page-protection policy will lead to the main page constantly getting deleted. In that case, removal of full protection could be left to regular admins and addition of it and all semi-protections to "trusted editors", whatever that term may mean. ] (]) 03:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll just add that banning an editor is not an admin function; it is that no admin is prepared to unblock an editor; so it is effectively a collective decision, not an individual decision. Deleting a page varies in seriousness, depending upon the page. Closing an AfD on apparent consensus may be, in the short term, serious to its creator. Salting it, certainly is. Deleting a User page is certainly serious, as in the recent ] situation. Even if an article page is deleted as a result of AfD, there is always ]. There are checks and balances built in, sufficient in general to limit the actions of out of policy mavericks. --''']''' (] - ]) 03:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I certainly agree that we hav good checks and balances, due process stuff in place, but some things take more discretion than other and some discretions are (IMHO) more serious than others. I could easily imagine the problems of setting a level of 2000 edits and presto your a trusted editor who could block. Even with containmment, many good new users could be turned off to the whole thing. On the other hand, I don't see reckless page protection as serious as an issue since its unlikely to have the same psychological aspect. And as you point out, there are more processes a person can screw up in deletions (userspace, CSD/PROD/AFD/DRV, copyvio, NPOV) than in protections. | |||
| :::: Or we could just ask Jimbo to follow up on his famous quote and make a "bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops"; that could help dispel the notion of being an admin as passing the RfA test :) ] (]) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Imagine what a huge disaster that would be. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 05:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The flaw with Carnildo's suggestions is that blocks are personal, and cause drama. Even bad undeletions can be quickly reversed, but bad blocks sit in the logs of ''users'' (not ''articles'') forever and they are a source of drama. I could ''almost'' agree to a system of users-with-three-months-2000-edits-nothing-bad-and-no-administrator-disagrees system (maybe they'd have to post their name on a page for seventy-two hours and if no administrator objects they get two weeks' +sysop) getting temporary +sysop where their actions are clearly marked with a link to distinguish them as actions by a temporary sysop in their trial period, normal administrators can overturn their actions and not be reversed by a temporary administrator, they ''do not'' have access to ] (or, even better: they can only block people who don't meet the technical threshold for being "autoconfirmed"), and they can be desysopped on the request of any administrator. But people will argue that it's too bureaucratic, probably, but anything less will result in mayhem and drama everywhere. ''']''' 10:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Please examine the behavior of ] == | |||
| He placed a wildly inappropriate "warning" on ]'s talkpage . This was after QE had been placing inappropriate fact tags (which Mongo reverted) over several 9/11-related pages. His , such as they are have been disruptive, as he has called an established editor a "vandal" numerous times, and refuses to retract when others tell him this is inappropriate. He lashes out at anyone who dares question his reasoning. I have warned him about this disruption. I think it would be appropriate for a user with the tools to keep an eye on this guy, and block him if he refuses to discontinue his disruptive behavior. ]] 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks MrWhich...he is just a new editor or recreated editor who is only here to support the "alternate storyline". I've asked him to cite what sources he is using to try and refute what the article states and maybe he will...one never knows.--] (]) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Oh, it's the jolly old disruptive single-purpose account again. He's only been here 4 days and he's progressed to edit-warring, fringe theory advocacy, biased editing, incivility, personal attacks, templating the regulars - crikey. How far wrong can you go? Can someone with more patience than I explain why he needs to do everything completely differently from now on? Thank you. ] <sup> ]</sup> 11:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == MiguelL0pz == | |||
| {{resolved|Blocked MiguelL0pz <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| <small>I have posted the following in ]'s talk page and on ]</small> | |||
| *{{Vandal|MiguelL0pz}} The editor is begging to be blocked by continuing to make vanfalism. ClueBot has warned him, but he still continues. The user has not made one single edit which is constructive. '''<font face=jokerman>]''' ]/] ]</font face> <small></small> 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Here are his edits: | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |He writes: "Johnathon Coachman was in Playboy and he show his ass and cock." | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |He wrote that the ECW Champion is Kelly Kelly and she won it on the December 10 edition of ECW. | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |He wrote that the WWE Champion is Melina, the Womens Champion is Candice Michelle and the World Tag Team Champions are Candice Michelle and Hanna Montana | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |Removed all dates for the General Managers of Smackdown | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |Again... removed all the GM's dates. | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |Here he wrote that the WWE Champion is Candice Michelle, the Womens Champion is Candice Michelle, the Intercontinental Champion is Candice Michelle and the World Tag Team Champions are... you guessed it: Candice Michelle and Candice Michelle! | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |Removed all authority figures in Friday Night Smackdown article. | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |All the champions are Candice Michelle again, but this time, Candice's tag team champion partner is Cody Rhodes... (at least he got 1/2 champion right) | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |Blanked the GMs again... what's his deal with the SD GMS? | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |Orginally saying that Vickie is the present GM... he replaced it with: "Vickie Guerrero, Fuck you." | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |He made it as so there are 2 women champions in the WWE, them being Melina and... CANDICE (go figure) | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |He wrote that SD's current GM is Stacy Keibler. | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |Wrote that Kelly Kelly is the current ECW Champion. | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |Replaced Kelly Kelly's win from September to December 11 | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |He wrote that Beth Phoenix hates mexicans | |||
| |- | |||
| | | |||
| |Replaced Stratus' real name with "Miss PLayboy 1999" | |||
| |} | |||
| There are many other edits, but you can't suppose I'd write them all down here. Please see to this ASAP. '''<font face=jokerman>]''' ]/] ]</font face> <small></small> 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Sfacets == | |||
| {{userlinks|Sfacets}} | |||
| This user has been blocked by, at my count, nine different admins, plus one extension of a block due to sockpuppetry. According tot he user, this is because everybody else is biased, especially all the admins. He's made it pretty clear he'll pick up the cudgels again when his latest block expires. Is this user redeemable, do we think? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know if he's redeemable in an absolute sense. But it has become clear that the effort required by the community to redeem him against his will is disproportionate to any benefit. ] (]) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Sockpuppetry is unproven. ] (]) 17:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Two accounts making identically POV edits to the self-same subjects, with the newer account active only when Sfacets is blocked. Oh, it ''could'' be innocent, but it's pretty unlikely. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've worked with Sfacets for two years now, and I'd say he gives "POV pushers" a bad name. He's exhibited a range of ] behaviors that include ] of articles, ], harassment of editors, false accusations about other editors, unfulfilled promises to reform, and more reverts than I've seen from any other editor. He claims that all the blocks he's received were "unwarranted, and the reasons given were shams like 'civility'". I also believe that he's incorrectly claimed to have created some of the images that he's uploaded. Regarding ], the sock designation and block were made by one uninvolved admin and confirmed by another. That account picked up right where Sfacets left off and made virtually identical edits. No matter if it's a meat puppet or a sock puppet, the account was only used to continue the edit dispute which led to one of Sfacets' blocks. I can't speak for the community, but my patience with Sfacets has already been exhausted. ]] ] 23:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * See also , where he rmeoves my comments from his carefully-laundered talk page with the edit summary "Remove harassing vandal." Anyone here think it's acceptable to call an admin a "harassing vandal" when they respond to posts on yo9ur talk page? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm sorry, I really can't resist that - Guy's edit summaries when blanking content from his own talk page are at times no less uncivil. ] (]) 23:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::That might be relevant if this were a reciprocal situation, but that's not in an issue in this case. Sfacets has a history of calling good faith edits "vandalism", and of using vandal-fighting tools in edit conflicts. There are numerous complaints on his talk page about mislabelling edits or editors. ]] ] 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And how is that relevant? <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 05:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's an element of the problematic behavior of this user. ]] ] 06:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP subject ambiguity == | |||
| This could apply to any BLP subject and may benefit from wider awareness. | |||
| We might routinely get problems whereby some "John Smith" tells us that the article "John Smith" points to a mass murderer, or other person that makes them look bad. In such cases please be aware of ], which can be placed at the top of a BLP article and looks like this: | |||
| {{AmbiguousBio|John Smith|an officer at Enron}} | |||
| The template takes a name, a brief description of the article subject, and an (optional) disambiguation page for others with similar names if such a page exists. For an example see ]. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Someone should probably go through and try to find all the controversial bios that use the less noticeable {{tl|otheruses}} type templates. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Power structure problems == | |||
| I would like to suggest a total revamping of the entire hierarchical structure of this project. It has become somewhat obvious to me that there are several users who hold high ranking positions of power within the project (I'm not naming any names at this stage yet) who appear more intent on arbitrarily blocking other users and exercising their own power, than actually helping to contribute to this project. Such users are bearing grudges against others and taking unreasonable punitive measures, without the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. These same users are ignoring votes for consensus, and abusing their powers to push their points of view into certain articles, removing or changing the valid contributions of others. I find this extremely counter productive, and it is not at all what this site stands for in my humble opinion. I feel that this project would benefit from considerably more equitable standings between users, where useful discussion, acceptance and tolerance would be the code of practice, rather than a power ranking system that arbitrarily blocks out the so called "enemies" of those perched on the higher rungs of the power ladder. Please take time to consider my post here and I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with many of you. ] (]) 19:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Heh, just realised what a foolish title I initially chose considering I want users here to take me seriously! ] (]) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem is, the people who have power are the ones who are most feverent in denying that there ''is'' a power structure. It's hard to fix something nobody will admit exists. -] <small>]</small> 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very true, Amarkov. ] (]) 20:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''total revamping of the entire hierarchical structure''' from an unknown person. Right. Try creating a few articles to prove you are here to help create an encyclopedia. Or improve some articles with new sourced information. Strangers telling us how to spend our unpaid time does not fly. ] (]) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think I'm a ''total'' stranger here, and I think that the OP made some good points. ] (]) 20:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't there something, somewhere, along the lines of "comment on the content, not the contributor"? ] (]) 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, what power structure? The technical one, or the social one? We can't change social at this point, in fact, you never really can. As far as a technical power structure goes, it is pretty set in, and doesn't really match to the social structure. <span>] <sup>]</sup></span> 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::The technical/official structure could be spread out (multiple admin levels) but the community is mostly against that and the more we divide tasks the more bureaucracy we need to maintain the divisions. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 20:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, I agree with 91. —–]]] 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think IP 91 should come out and tell us who he really is. He's obviously not a new user. On the other hand there are extremely influential users who ignore problems. But, I disagree with IP 91 in that I feel a total revamping is not needed.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * There is no hierarchical structure. That makes it a bit difficult to revamp it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *:Indeed, officially it works exactly as 91 says it should. In practice, there are deviations from the ideal, but I see no easy way to fix those by "revamping the power structure" - the easiest way to fix them is to take the abusers to ArbCom. --] (]) 23:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I kind of agree with 91. Administrators are immune to consequences for most of the actions they take, in my experience, which in turn leads some ofthem to be some of the most egregrious edit warriors. I also definitely disagree that he should reveal himself at this juncture-- given his opinion, it is reasonable to believe that he himself might be a controversial figure and as such wishes to post his argument without bias being imposed upon it by who he is. ] (]) 06:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I've commented before that I think the admin process might work better if users were eased into it, being trusted with certain tools before others. But, Z-man makes the good point that it would just create more divisions in the community (imagine having to go through multiple RFAs). And we are here to write an encyclopedia, so as long as the structural system isn't broken (we don't see 20 day backlogs are RfD or unreverted vandalism to the main page), I'm going to focus my attention on my personal pet peeves, poor spelling and formatting in articles. ] (]) 06:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==zealous editors and edit warring at the main 9/11 article== | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
| there is a at the main 9/11 article, i've made a valid citation request which is persistently and constantly removed with no arguments whatsoever. as far as the talkpage history goes, it appears that we are dealing with the particular group of extremely biased and overzealous editors who decided to install some sort of hegemony there. numerous policies has been broken in last few days, i'd appreciate if appropriate warnings would be distributed among involved parties. thank you. ] (]) 01:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll have a look. In the meantime, it would be helpful if you can repair your keyboard's "shift" key. ] (]) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no need for admin intervention here. This is a regular dispute. Your statement that your citation request has been "removed with no arguments whatsoever" is a mischaracterization, judging from the talk page. Arguments you disagree with are still arguments. The users you are talking about are neither biased nor overzealous. Please read ]. Misplaced Pages is not a ] to publish ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::A review of the article shows that ] has been engaged in a campaign of ]; I have warned him/her accordingly. ] (]) 02:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::for a valid argument you need a valid reference or source, soapboxes or fringe theories, which you've pointed to have nothing to do with the request for reference, do they? please explain briefly, if the citation request is removed without actually providing a citation, then that is acceptable, per our guidelines? as for the soapbox, and tendentious editing claims, that's exactly why i've decided to point to the things which are going on there, for if you take a look, you'll see that editors involved are not focused on the issues, they rather talk about fringe theories, conspiracy theories and all sorts of non related issues. since i'm working long hours, i find such approach not only inappropriate, but also entropic in its nature, i'd really appreciate if the folks would focus on the issues and not waste other peoples time or provoke some of those responses that i've made there, just so i may regret them the very next day. i'm not sure why would you decide to use something which can easily be described as the double standard? please, share a few words, thanks. ] (]) 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This does not require admin attention. ] does not seem to understand our guidelines, and has been arguing that the article needs to meet a standard of evidence beyond anything guidelines mandate, despite being told repeatedly by a number of different editors that he is mistaken. His request for sourcing is based on this misinterpretation, and other users have removed it for that very reason. It is far from "without argument". --] (]) 03:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It may be worth noting that we've gone over this issue ad nauseum before, with ] cases, user bans, etc. for people pushing conspiracy theories on 9/11. This is nothing new, and proponents usually end up losing their case or banned. But seriously, we have an editor here claiming there were no Arabs aboard Flight 77, despite one of the biggest glutton of sources I could ever have imagined. This is POV pushing at its worst, and you are treading dangerous waters. ] (]) 03:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not claiming a single thing, and your insults are noted, thank you… here, , along with the documents provided through the FOIA (attached at the bottom), these documents prove beyond any doubt that there were no Arabs aboard the Flight 77. It may be worth noting the fact that omission, neglect and denial of such reference is simply not acceptable. ] (]) 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A link to an inaccessible page on a Croatian site is your proof? May I register my incredulity here? —''']''' 04:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Incredulity seconded, but this belongs on the talk page. Closing this discussion. ] (]) 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to bring to your attention ]. | |||
| At one point, Defender was one of Misplaced Pages's prized editors. However, he was blocked indefinitely in August for severe harassment and for disrespecting a ellow user's ]. It was a widely endorsed block, and since no administrator was willing to overturn the block, he was ]. | |||
| Now, recently, he has ], however it was declined. What I'm suggesting the community consider is something that I know may cause some amount of drama, but please understand that this is out of ]. | |||
| I am suggesting we unblock Defender 911. | |||
| This is not going to be easy for the community to do. There was very serious disruption caused by this user, and it stemmed from disrespecting an editors right to vanish. However, what I suggest is that we keep a close eye on Defender, and place him on civility probation. Yes, I know this would be a tough unblock, but I'm certain if he really has reformed, he can be an asset once more. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| After all, we all lose sight once in awhile. :) ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> | |||
| :I strongly, strongly oppose Defender 911 being unblocked or unbanned. His actions just prior to his banning showed a serious inability to use common sense, showed how this user could be extremely malicious and a danger to good-faithed Misplaced Pages editors (in the interests of privacy for those involved I can obviously not provide details), a total disregard for established users' warnings both about his userspace editing and his harassment of other editors, and a general inability to be involved in a community environment without causing excessive disturbance. Sorry, but I don't want Defender 911 to be editing Misplaced Pages ny time soon, both to protect users who are far more valuable than him from his harassment and also to prevent other, less noticeable yet just as effective disruption. I strongly oppose unbanning. ''']''' 06:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Could we have some diffs of the example behavior which caused the ban in the first place? It's unusual for someone to be banned on first offense, as it appears so here. ] (]) 06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::From my understanding many have been oversighted. It would be inappropriate to rehost the harassment that resulted in the block, really. For some more tame stuff see the recent contributions (the last 100) — although, it must be said, that is only the tip of the iceberg and the end of the whole story. Furthermore, it was hardly the users' "first offence" — Defender 911 had so many warnings, so many conditional no-blocks (for a small selection see before the block). ''']''' 06:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:00, 11 January 2025
Notices of interest to administrators
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussionOpen tasks
Centralized discussion- Refining the administrator elections process
- Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
- LLM/chatbot comments in discussions
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 |
| 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 | 368 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
| 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 |
| 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 | 491 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 | 337 |
| 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 | 347 |
| Other links | |||||||||
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 14 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 31 | 15 | 46 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 30 sockpuppet investigations
- 12 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 2 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 86 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 18 requested closures
- 44 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 11 Copyright problems
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:
I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.
However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:
That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.
- Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like
On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.
, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
I will never use multiple accounts anymore
and that he wants tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
- But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC) - Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft
I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.
Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?
Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace
...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)- I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?
Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)- Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to archive all threads in Talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. Yaris678 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
43.249.196.179 (again)
See their previous thread here, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
- I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243
@Dreameditsbrooklyn and to a lesser extent @Aviationwikiflight have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as these diffs at me, this diff at AWF, and this diff at User:Awdqmb. Is this actionable? guninvalid (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety
I am stating a fact.
and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".
You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
this
you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on which aspect of
- Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
- But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:MOS says:
If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
- WP:AT, which follows MOS says:
Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
- The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?
Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:MOS says:
An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability
No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' asAccident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible
. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place.
... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries
– The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article statedAirliner crash
, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place.
Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ZLEA T\ 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. guninvalid (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Warn both to drop the stick, otherwise, no action at this point. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hands FOARP two trouts You want to hand them out, or me? Buffs (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material
This appears to be done. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After reverting multiple edits that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @FMSky posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: "Put your trash analyses in the appropriate section(s) and stop flooding the lead with citations.". 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, why haven't you done that? --FMSky (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Article in question is a contentious topic x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?
How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see this edit from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user FederalElection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll add that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, wp:undue concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as 62.74.35.238 now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. WaggersTALK 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Topic ban appeal
Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. DesertInfo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
- I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
- I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
- This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd say
"racial issues broadly construed"
is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC) - Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart
Looks like this is done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! GD234 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like Camden Stewart or Camden Music. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" GD234 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @GD234: I have moved the article to draftspace at Draft:Camdenmusique. If you have a conflict of interest with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are interested in ensuring that the article is indexed on Google and you uploaded his professional headshot), you must declare it following these instructions. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at articles for creation. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback! GD234 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Andra Febrian report
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many edit wars. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's Editing policy) on many pages that good-intended edits have occurred on
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset.
I request that the user is warned.
HiLux duck — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking into this
Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Mr.Choppers warning request
- This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the WP:Civility rules because:
- calling me a "nuisance" because of own bias supporting others in edit wars that have nothing to do with the user. (WP:Civility) (WP:Civility (second violation this user has performed))
- responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war
- note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that
- also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims.
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, HiLux duck (talk) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
- Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Cannot draftify page
Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried to draftify Wuliangbao_Pagoda but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Remove PCR flag
Flag run down. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion."The Testifier" report
Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § "The Testifier" report – voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Problem with creating user talk page
CU blocked as sock by Spicy. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user BFDIisNOTnotable (talk · contribs) to warn them against edit warring with {{subst:uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- This particular account was definitely created on this wiki. Graham87 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RFC, Misplaced Pages:Notability (species) was adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.
- A request for comment is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.
Arbitration
- Following the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: CaptainEek, Daniel, Elli, KrakatoaKatie, Liz, Primefac, ScottishFinnishRadish, Theleekycauldron, Worm That Turned.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation
I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per WP:NLT. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with this addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
repost from archive:
The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.
Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Misplaced Pages:Edit war is mandatory
but Uwappa has done neither.
I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.
Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 )
- 11:10 (UTC), 25 December 2024: Uwappa replaces {{Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
- 13:39, 25 December 2024: JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
- 13:55, 25 December 2024: JMF opens Template talk:Body roundness index#Proposed version 4 is a step too far, reverted for further discussion at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
- 14:08, 25 December 2024: Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page.
- 14:27, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
- 14:39, 25 December 2024 JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
- 14:45, 25 December 2024: at User talk:Uwappa#Bold, revert, discuss, JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
- 17:38, 25 December 2024: Zefr contributes to BRD debate.
- 17:53, 25 December 2024: At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
- 19:50, 25 December 2024 At Waist-to-height ratio, JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
- (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
- 20:23, 25 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".
- 16:19, 26 December 2024 user:Zefr reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish sqa
- 09:57, 27 December 2024 Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
- 09:59, 27 December 2024 Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also User_talk:Uwappa#Edit_warring for escalation in progress.".
- 11:05, 27 December 2024 JMF reverts to sqa again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.
- 11:26, 27 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
- 13:04, 27 December 2024 At their talk page, Uwappa alleges WP:NPA violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
---
- 10:51, 29 December 2024 At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
- 14:17, 29 December 2024 Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.
As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Reposted above from archive, see User_talk:Uwappa#c-JMF-20250105190300-Uwappa-20250105161700
JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
- I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
- Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.
user:Liz What would you like me to do now? Uwappa (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- To who would this be a threat?
- Which law?
- In which country?
- Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
- It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
- The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
- Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Wow, I am glad you asked.
- Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
- I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could well be taken as a legal threat), and then immediately go back and revert the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Anybody in the room who can answer my 3 questions?
- Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
- Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read my reasons for being late to this party?
- Did anybody read User_talk:Uwappa#Bold,_revert,_discuss and User_talk:Uwappa#Notice_of_reference_to_ANI?
- Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
- Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
- Uwappa (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Black_Kite, how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
- Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{Body roundness index}}. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of WP:PAID or at least a WP:COI which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it was. Meanwhile, you're still edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC) - Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a chilling effect. When called on it you have continually Wikilawyered instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat
And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the sixth time.16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (Their edit note adds 3rd time in 24 hours: are they boasting of a 3RR vio? Zefr undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
.An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
— WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule - Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:
- Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.
3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.
-
- From WP:EW;
Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring
. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- From WP:EW;
- To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
- In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was explictly a legal threat. Suggest revoking TPA. @Black Kite: - The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
An inappropriate template being added to many pages
- Oct13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_6#Template:Mortal_sin_in_the_Catholic_Church. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've reverted the addition of the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The template as been deleted per WP:G4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see Template:Mortal Sins According To The Catholic Church) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from Oct13 on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. Tarlby 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a RADAR situation here. Beeblebrox 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. Seraphimblade 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction
User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. Misplaced Pages is not a social network. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I find that Ottawahitech (talk · contribs) has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.
As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.
Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. -Lemonaka 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- This might be better at WP:AN. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Their previous block seemed a little bit like WP:CIR block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. -Lemonaka 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lemonaka: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent IDHT behavior of this user continues on.
- I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
- Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
- Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
- And that's still all they want. They don't want to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, here is the ANI discussion that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --bonadea contributions talk 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.RFU backlog doin' great
I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.
That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to everyone who helped make this suck a little less. Beeblebrox 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Call for mentors
There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Growth Team features/Mentor list about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are assigned a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to all new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- asilvering (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. Nobody (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. JayCubby 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
- I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). JayCubby 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Kansascitt1225 ban appeal
I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:
(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
References
- https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- (mildly involved) Support. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per asilvering and WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to right great wrongs as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate on their talk page and on their unblock request from November. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. FOARP (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?
ssssshhh. -- asilvering (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Heritage Foundation
There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Deleted contributions request
Done and dusted. Good work all. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was Thick Sand Motorcycling, which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called How-to/Motorcycling, but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is 62.200.132.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). JJPMaster (she/they) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: The import and merge are Done. Please delete the page now. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JJPMaster: I've deleted the page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: The import and merge are
- @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs didn't exist in their current form until 23 December 2004. This page was deleted about a month before that. —Cryptic 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.WP:NOTHERE behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from User: Astronomical17
Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. Liz 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Astronomical17's talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with Devstacks which is currently at WP:AfD and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my WP:NOTHERE allegation comes from this diff at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? guninvalid (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. User:Cyanxbl) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! Buffs (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person
The pages are Chaudhry Sher Ali Khan and Chaudhary Sher Ali. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? 71.202.215.54 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- Are they the same person? The date of birth (for Chaudhary Sher Ali) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: diff) it's different...
Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted),it's quite possibly a waste of time. - That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32, this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. Liz 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a WP:TNT kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
- I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a proposed merge, instead of here? WaggersTALK 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.
Sinai and Palestine campaign semi-protected until the 23rd. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by OnuJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 57th Infantry Regiment (Ottoman Empire) and Sinai and Palestine campaign, removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to their usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (
changing Palestine to Israel
) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)- I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (
- I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Hide this racist edit.
| WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people. https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 200.80.186.184 (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
|
Admin prohibits to delete copyright links
This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the following topic: MU Online Admin Egilus refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. Nebraska Ivan (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.96.230.143.43
Blocked, and WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user is a frequent vandal on the page Devils Tower. I am requesting a block. Drdr150 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback/dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
StoneX Group Inc.
I’m concerned about the page at StoneX Group Inc.
There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Permissions Removal
Rights...left? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! Ternera (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
ftools is back!
I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel
UNBLOCK DENIED AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
- I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
- While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
- My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "
The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.
". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
- Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- You need to re-check. Here, AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see WP:AGF. Nxcrypto Message 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean now but I did not from the original posting. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is
we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing
, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicatessomeone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them
. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:
voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "
However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.
" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for WP:AN), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)- All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention WP:SHARE would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it WP:SOCKing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with Ivanvector's assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the assertion that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual also had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:
- Support with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support: I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that Misplaced Pages:One last chance applies here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I warned AKG in October 2021 for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from arbitration enforcement. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
- I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than not agreeing to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. Azuredivay (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. Lorstaking (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as punishment, but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Ivanvector: i.e. dependent on a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. SerialNumber54129 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I find myself agreeing with Black Kite - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. The Kip 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. Nxcrypto Message 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I would tentatively support with the TBAN they have now agreed to.I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support (NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case). Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:
After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping Yamla, The Kip, Black Kite, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Simonm223 and Vanamonde93. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ratnahastin (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Would they also consent to the WP:ARBPIA topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE, but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. Girth Summit (blether) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Very, very weak support on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. Andre🚐 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under WP:ARBIPA. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. Miniapolis 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - At the end of the day, the standard offer has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. Dympies (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --JBL (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. Shankargb (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. Star Mississippi 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Import request
Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, they did create the page. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24
Special:Contributions/109.172.86.0/24 this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). jolielover♥talk 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:
- Coordinating arbitrators
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.
Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
- Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
- Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
- Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
- Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
- Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.
A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators