Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 06:57, 16 December 2007 editB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,958 edits →User:Defender 911: no← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:36, 24 December 2024 edit undoBeanieFan11 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers47,680 edits →Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request: cmt
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	<div align="center">{{Purge|''Purge the cache to refresh this page''}}</div>
			|algo = old(7d)
	{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
			|counter = 367
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
	|maxarchivesize = 250K
			|maxarchivesize = 700K
	|counter = 115
			|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	|algo = old(48h)
			|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
			|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. &mdash;]]<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-->
			== ZebulonMorn ==
	:''Moved to ] because this is 38kb of wikitext, 201kb post-expand, and literally half the rendered page.'''
			{{atop|Closed with no action at the moment. {{u|ZebulonMorn}}'s last edit was nearly six days ago and some of their comments below appear to be conciliatory, although others were evasive—direct replies are wanted, not "Happy to answer anything else if needed". If further issues arise, please explain them at ] and ping me if necessary. ] (]) 02:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	Executive summary: {{userlinks|Webgeek}} and numerous IPs added many links to sites apparently run by him. —] 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
			Hi, {{user|ZebulonMorn}} has ignored continual warnings on a range of topics (manual of style in military icons, minor edit purpose, citing sources, and more recently has ignored consensus on a NPOV on a BLP article). Request admin intervention. --] (]) 21:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{yo|Engineerchange}} can you provide the community with examples linked with ]'s? Thanks. ] (]) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
	Futuristic timestamp to keep this from getting archived by the bot: 23:59, 31 December 2037 (UTC)
			::{{reply|Deepfriedokra}} Some examples:
			:: - Manual of style on military icons: {{diff2|1260496477}}, {{diff2|1260503015}}, {{diff2|1260347589}}, {{diff2|1260910501}} (each of these edits are after the last warning on their ] on Nov 29)
			:: - Minor edit tag: {{diff2|1260928801}}, {{diff2|1260925564}}, {{diff2|1260877930}}, {{diff2|1260839845}} (each from the last couple days)
			:: - NPOV about BLP: {{diff2|1261041427}}, {{diff2|1261024333}}, {{diff2|1261015833}} (user ignored feedback on their talk page and the page's talk page and has continued edit warring)
			:: - not citing sources or adding info w/o support: {{diff2|1260938015}}, {{diff2|1260909087}}, {{diff2|1260544947}}, {{diff2|1260147566}}
			:: Hope this helps, --] (]) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I've made several changes to the articles ZM's added to. I would concur that this is POV pushing and it appears he opposes this Sheriff. I have no strong opinions on this individual, but at least some of the claims that he's made are not supported by ] and are in violation of that policy as well as ]. If it continues, a block to get the point across would be appropriate. ] (]) 01:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:ZM has continued to add negative/defamatory material about this individual against the general consensus of the editors involved. At this point, ZM, you '''need''' to use the talk page to come to a consensus. Otherwise, I support ] as suggested by Deepfriedokra for further edits on this page. In addition, ZM has uploaded a CLEARLY copyrighted image straight from twitter and released it under a false license. At this point, ZM's attempt seems to be to besmirch the sheriff (no idea on the motive here). In Any case, a full block would be acceptable as well under ]. ] (]) 23:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::{{ping|Buffs}} I obviously don't know ZM's personal motivations, but for a history of the threats and attacks made against Chitwood during his tenure, please see . <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 15:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*My inclination is a ] from article space that can be unblocked if they answer here.] (]) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Hey! I'm getting in touch with you about a notice. Editing pages is pretty easy, but I'm still figuring out how to navigate the rest, so I'm sorry I put it in the talk page first. I've seen notices and some complaints, so first I should say nothing is intentionally nefarious. As far as the military edits go, I've figured that out, based on ] and ], so I've since ceased. I'm originally from Volusia and still technically have my residency there, so I do feel responsible and knowledgeable about the topics, however, after overwhelming pushback, I was clearly wrong. I don't work for any politicians nor am I associated with any, but there are people I find interesting and think have made an impact locally and should be included, but I get that requires a certain threshold and I was turned down. I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble or get myself blocked. ] was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy until the past few days or so and I haven't had any serious issues that I'm aware of since. I've made many edits since and most have been checked by ]. Happy to answer anything else if needed! ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Two questions for ]: 1) Do you have any personal connection to John Flemm (who you wrote ] which you then blanked and for some reason moved to {{-r|Draft:John}}) or any other politicians in Volusia County, Florida? 2) Is there a reason that your userpage largely copies ]'s, including the userbox saying how long you've been an editor? (This isn't an accusation of anything against Eyer, to be clear.) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Something about mimicry and flattery, I guess? I'm curious to hear @ZebulonMorn's answer, too. —] (he/him) <small>If you ], add <code><small>&#123;&#123;reply to|Eyer&#125;&#125;</small></code> to your message.</small> 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::@], I don't see an answer to Tamzin's question about your userpage? -- ] (]) 17:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Noting I have declined ] on the draft because it is relevant to ongoing discussion here. No objection to G7 once discussion concludes. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Not an admin, but I was involved in previous discussions on the person's talk page, so is it acceptable for me to comment?
			*::The user in question has now deleted all past discussions on their talk page. I agree with above complaints that the user should at least be subjected to a partial block from editing articles about any Central Florida government officials. While Chitwood is the most egregious case, this user's entire edit history involves similar types of edits using unreliable sources in order to commit violations of ]. The Chitwood article is not the only problem here, with this same user pushing a POV in the following edit (a "minor" edit?) which had already been removed and reverted . <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I would concur. ] (]) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:My issues with ZM have been his lack of edit summaries and the unwillingness to engage in discussion with multiple editors who warned him on his talk page, which recently appeared as until he scrubbed the content without responding. Just today, he made this "minor edit" under his own self-stated rationale that "Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy" that he was editing, under, supposedly "until the past few days" but it never should have come this far.
	== Rex Germanus ==
			:@] has made a lot of messes for other editors to clean up, which he is unwilling even to talk about, let alone go back and fix, even after being asked multiple times to fix his mistakes. A Full Block is warranted. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm sorry I was unclear on the use of "minor edit', I really didn't think it was too far, but I know better know. As far as that edit is concerned, was any of the information improperly sourced or unimportant? It hasn't been edited other than de-capitalization. I thought it was a good contribution that was similar other information under different offices. I'm really not trying to create "a lot of messes", I'm genuinely trying to contribute. As far as the engaging, that's my bad. I was still learning to figure out how to navigate wiki, but I've gotten better now. I'm not "unwilling" to talk though, I was trying to respond on talk pages for a couple days before I figured out this was the correct location, again my bad. I think a full block seems extreme, but that's not for me to decide. ] (]) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::And, as I posted on your talk page before you ignored my comment and deleted it, please review our policies such as ]. In this edit for example, capitalizing words like "marketing", "full-time", "landscaping", "lifeguard", etc. are unnecessary. Cleaning up your messes like and takes time and effort. When another editor cites a rule that you broke, please read the rule and learn it, instead of joking about "ignore all rules" and making the same violation a dozen more times. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Capitalization errors are clearly non-malicious edits and ], while tongue-in-cheek, is still official wiki policy. I've made over 1,000 edits, most of which remain unedited. If this is really the standard for a "full block", there's no point in anyone new genuinely attempting to edit wiki if they're blocked for capitalization mistakes.
			::::Again, I apologize for not understanding what the discussion pages were and the lack of communication. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. ] (]) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{u|ZebulonMorn}}, can you respond to {{np|Tamzin}}'s questions above? ] (]) 21:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Hello! My response to ] was kind of an amalgamation response to a few of the questions from people. I believe it was answered there, but if there is anything more specific I'm happy to answer. ] (]) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::"Ignore all rules", in full, says; {{tq|If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''.}} It does not mean that you can just do whatever you like. If other editors do not agree that your edit improved Misplaced Pages, or was necessary for maintenance, then it is not protected by "Ignore all rules." It does not excuse careless editing or flouting of policies and guidelines. ] 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			It's been a week. Could an admin be so kind as to weigh in here? Regardless of your conclusion ZM doesn't deserve to have this ] indefinitely. ] (]) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'm 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.
			:I'll renew my concern... ] (]) 14:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			It's these kinds of edits that continue to concern me. The sheer volume of purported "reliable sources" that are being added by the user and us editors having to search and destroy which ones are valid. The user's continued argument that every source the user adds is "reliable" (see {{diff2|1263412965}}). See {{diff2|1263414344}} - both sources appear reliable, but have no reference to the subject, completely ignoring ]. --] (]) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			:@] Hey, you might want to check the conversation again and do your own research first. ] (]) 17:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	Finally, edits like this one are to me unacceptable.
			::These edits and conversations have been taking place just over the past few hours and are ongoing. It appears you missed both references. It would probably serve us all best to wait until we finish communicating before jumping into the noticeboard, especially when it's clearly premature. ] (]) 17:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{reply|ZebulonMorn}} Respectfully, my comments are not premature; this noticeboard discussion is still active. Your insistence on adding more words to argue your point does not mean it meets ]. For instance, your comment "second source references Paul Terry visiting the school" is an example of a 'passing reference' to a topic, these are not ]. Citing the Facebook page for that preschool is not a reliable source. --] (]) 18:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::There are other ] from the ], ], and the county government. Facebook is just one source. I don't have control over ], which is why were discussing on the nominating page? I'm explaining and defending my edits, as you're supposed to do. I'm also adding further information to the article that's been nominated for deletion, as is suggested to keep it from being deleted. ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			On an AfD for a preschool, they mentioned "The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious" (with sources about Terry), to which I replied "And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? ]." Instead of replying, they decided to add this information to the article, so now we have an article about a preschool containing a whole section about a deputy sheriff who "murdered his 10-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son before killing himself" in 2005, with the only connection being that the same person once visited that preschool in 1999! This raises serious ] issues. As the AfD nominator, I have not removed the info from the article, but it clearly doesn't belong there at all... ] (]) 18:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			:Removed. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::All edits made displayed here where either because I had (better) sources or because others lacked them. I stand by all of them.
			::Thanks! ] (]) 10:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::'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)
			Would an admin please weigh in here. This has been waiting for a conclusion for quite a while. I'll be satisfied with a non-admin closure if someone feels that's appropriate. ] (]) 19:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			{{abot}}
	: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)
	===Community ban discussion===		== Appeal of my topic ban ==
			{{atop|1=This has been open for two weeks, and {{ping|Stuartyeates}} hasn't edited since the 16th. Given the discussion below, I'm closing this with the following notes:<br>
	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)
			<br>
	: 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)
			(1) The topic ban is not repealed.<br>
	::''Wie een hond wil slaan, vindt licht een stok.'' Go find your stick Jehochman. Surprise me.] (]) 20:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
			<br>
	:::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)
			(2) Stuartyeates is '''heavily encouraged to only edit using one account, and one account only'''.<br>
	::::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)
			<br>
			If (2) is complied with (1) can be revisited in another six months or so. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			TL;DR: on (roughly) the 20th anniversary of joining en.wiki, I'm appealing my years-long topic ban from BLPs.
			After creating thousands of biographies (mainly of New Zealanders and/or academics) over more than a decade, on 25 Sept 2021 I created or expanded ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] with material on a then-current race controversy. I then continued editing as normal. Several months later (April '22) an editor raised issues with my edits of that day and I escalated to ]. After much discussion I received an indefinite topic ban from BLPs:
	:::* (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)
			:: '''Stuartyeates is indefinitely topic banned from the subject area of biographies of living persons, broadly construed.''' (see ]).
	::::* 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)
	::::::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)
	(Unindent)
	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))
	::::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)
	:::::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)
	:::::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)
			Since the topic ban I've done some editing of en.wiki (>2,000 edits, some patrols and some barnstars), but I've been mainly active on wikidata (>60,000 edits, no barnstars).
	*I've been asked to comment here. I haven't had time to look into this in detail, but there does appear to be a case here for an indefinite block. Before supporting that, I'd like to ask if there is any case for a repeated one month block, or a longer block (with people watching out for block evasion) or a topic ban? The evidence above that Rex has been evading his revert parole should also be followed up. I'd also urge Rex (and others) to speak up if any of these blocks were inappropriate. ] (]) 23:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
			I accidentally broke the topic ban a couple of times as exemplified by my recent edits to ]: I noticed a mistake on wikidata that was sourced to en.wiki; I fixed wikidata and then en.wiki before realising I wasn't allowed to make that edit and self-reverted (still not fixed on en.wiki at the time of writing). The first time this happened I reported it to the closing admin who indicated that if I caught myself and reverted it wasn't a problem (see ]).
	:* 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'll readily admit that I went harder than I should have on 25 Sept 2021. I a non-BLP for the controversy was the right option. Mouthing off on twitter was the wrong option. I feel that I've done my time for what was clearly a one-off. If the topic ban is removed I'll not repeat that.
	::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)
			Full disclosure: I was involved in ] and ]. I have previous appealled this topic ban at ]. The discussion at ] may also be relevant.
	::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)
	:::Good. --] (]) 17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Thank you. ] (]) 20:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ambivalent. --] (]) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Ambivalent too. ] (]) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::Good, considering the absence of the entry "beethof" on etymology.nl. ] (]) 13:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::I am in support of the ban. ] (]) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (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)
	::::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)
	:::::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)
	::::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)
	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)
			It is my intention to notify ] of this appeal, since all this is New Zealand-related and I have a long history with those folks. I'll also be notifying the closing admin. ] (]) 09:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::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)
			=== Comments by uninvolved editors ===
	== ] and ] -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam? ==
			'''Support unbanning'''. A single accidental mistake on a different wiki wouldn't violate topic ban on the ENWP slightly. Making BLPs is a risky task, I just made some BLPs which are a translation from RUWP, but one of them is nominated for deletion. Just be careful of the text and use sources carefully. ] (]) 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			'''Comment''' {{yo|Stuartyeates}} You've glossed over having deliberately violated ] as part of a disagreement with others. (Per {{ping|Jayron32|Cullen328}}'s opposes in last appeal.)] (]) 13:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			* I would want to hear from the other involved editors before endorsing a complete lifting of the restriction, but I will suggest limiting the restriction to "race/ethnicity topics involving living people"; that should ensure that Wikidata-related edits do not inadvertently violate a ban. ] (]) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support lifting the ban''' or limiting it to the restriction suggested above, per my comments at the ]. The ban seemed overbroad to me in the first place: yes, the conduct was egregious, but the remedy was not tailored. As I wrote two years ago, {{tq|I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that.}} ] (]) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC) <small>(Non-admin comment. I was visiting this page to check on another discussion and happened to see this thread.)</small>
			*'''Deeply concerned''' about the sheer number of alt accounts. It took some digging but I found at an afd related to Donald Trump, which makes this a BLP issue. Another alt for a blp. Perhaps not a huge deal in and of itself but technically a violation nonetheless. And by another sock, concerning a list of people, some of whom are alive. by another sock earlier this year. With so many other accounts, who knows what other violations may exist? I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction. Actually I don't support this unless and until Stuart restricts himself to one account for at least six months. It's not feasible to monitor fifty+ alts for violations. ] ] 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:* '''I concede that these are breaches of my topic ban''', I'll take that on the chin. I'm sorry I made those edits, I shouldn't have. In my defense (a) They're 100% accidental (b) None of these appears to be related to the issues that led to the topic ban or contentious in any way (c) There are four of them, over the same time I count seven barnstar or barnstar-like awards on my talk archives, so they don't reflect the body of my work over that time. ] (]) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*:Those are four that I found, my point stands that it is almost impossible to know how many more there may be considering the absurd number of alts you have. Barnstars don't change any of that. ] ] 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*::I also find it hard to believe that you accidentally commented on Donald Trump. He's famously totally alive. ] ] 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I was prepared to advocate on your behalf... but I'm also concerned based on the number of accounts and what's gone on with them. I'm also looking through your talk page archives (] and ]) and noticing that the barnstars and related awards I'm seeing were actually mostly given by me. Archive 25 has 6 awards given by me as as the result of your participation in backlog drives, one for your participation / contributions for the year (end of year NPP award, given by Dr vulpes), and an AfC backlog drive award (from Robertsky). #26 has an NPP backlog drive award as well (also given by me). I do appreciate your contributions to NPP, but there is a bit of a difference in people going out of their way to give barnstars for great work and receiving them as the result of participation in backlog drives.
			:Anyways though, back to the key issue for me, your use of multiple accounts. JSS said "{{tq|I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction.}}", is this something you're willing to commit to @]? I personally don't understand your usage of, and the large amount of alts that you have. ] (]) 13:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' These alt accounts are a nonstarter for me (some blocked) as are the acknowledged breaches of the topic ban. If they were inadvertent or debatable, I could possibly see fit to give them some slack, but what I'm seeing here doesn't give me a good feeling that lessons have been learned. Show us you can abide for at least 6 months and commit to a single account and I would reconsider. ] (]) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== Why I use alts ===
	;Articles:
			About 15 years ago during a round of the eternal "should all newcomers be welcomed (by a bot)?" discussion, some HCI person wrote a blog post on a long-defunct uni blog site. They said experienced editors are underestimating (a) how many new users are being welcomed (we only see the problems) and (b) the retention bonus of real human interaction. They challenged us to create a new user account and try editing using it for a while. Some of us did. Some of us found that editing with a clean account removed distractions (no watchlists to watch, no alerts to check, no !votes to vote in because we weren't allowed, no tools to use, no noticeboards like this to update, etc) and that we enjoyed focusing on the barebones editing, usually wikignoming. Discussion about the welcoming issue were less clear cut, but led to a bit of a game, where you see how many edits you can go without getting a user talk page. The game got harder when some wikis introduced auto-welcoming and clicking on an interwiki link lost you the game.
	*] -- 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.
			Most of my 'game' edits were tidying up backlogs so minor / obscure they're not even tracked as backlogs. So https://quarry.wmcloud.org/';%20drop%20database%20prod; is a series of queries finding old articles without a talk page (and thus not assigned to wikiproject) so I can add them to wikiprojects. The username is taken from the cartoon at https://xkcd.com/327/ . For the last decade, me 'game' editing was en.wiki editing I've actually really enjoyed.
	: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)
			Some of my edits are work related. See ] for information on what kind of thing that is. There may or may not be a new class of en.wiki editors: librarians who want to fix facts which have flowed from en.wiki to wikidata to the librarians' library catalogs; whether we'll notice them in the deluge of other random users remains to be seen.
	;Related editors (but not necessarily sockpuppets):
	*{{IPSummary|71.42.169.190}}
	*{{IPSummary|66.93.248.72}}
	*{{IPSummary|24.73.72.214}}
	*{{IPSummary|97.97.197.9}}
	*{{UserSummary|Cedarkey1}}
	*{{UserSummary|Pputter}}
	*{{UserSummary|Damslerset}}
			One of my alts was created to test for a bug which is now fixed in the upcoming IP Account thingie.
			Several times I've created a new account to be sure that something works the way I remember it, in order to help someone else or to take a screenshot (for socials or a blog). WMF improvements have been focused on the onboarding process and branding so there have been a lot of changes over the last 20 years. If you haven't created an alt on en.wiki in the last decade, I doubt it will be as you remember it. Trying to 'reset' an old account has some interesting effects too, but that's another story.
	;Discussions:
	*]
	*]
	*] <small>(permanent )</small>
	*] <small>(permanent )</small>
	*] <small>(permanent )</small>
	*]
			Some of my alts have a humourous intent, ] is my most longstanding one, and I was setting up several alts for a christmas joke when the issue at ] blew up. I've had positive feedback on my joke alts, most was off-wiki, but see for example ].
			As far as I can tell there are no en.wiki policies against how I use alts . As far as I can tell there are no WMF policies against how I use alts. I'm aware that a number of people appear to be deeply opposed to it, but I've always been unclear why, maybe you'd like to try and explain it?
	;Domains added to Misplaced Pages:
	*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.
			As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban. They were all done on my main account which is also my real name and the one I use on my socials. ] (]) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{tq|As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban.}} Wrong. A sanction applies to the ''person operating the account'' regardless of whether they are using their main account or an alternate account. You are appealing an editing restriction. It is unreasonable to even ''ask'' the community to determine that all fifty or so accounts have not been violating that restriction, but by appealing you are essentially asking that. It took me quite some time to find the examples above, due to the sheer number of accounts involved. I certainly did not check every single one, but it is reasonable to conclude there are more violations than the ones I have already brought forth. ] ] 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	;Also see:
			::@], I'm confused about this discussion of "alts" – do you have a list of these somewhere? If they aren't disclosed clearly on wiki, and they're being used to evade a topic ban or to participate in project space, they aren't alts – they're socks. – ] 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	*]
			:::More importantly, does Stuartyeates have a list of them somewhere? 😜 ] (]) 23:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	*]
			::::I was working off the list of admitted alts . It's... a lot. And no, they are not all clearly tagged as alts. I'm actually rather surprised this did not earn them a block. Perhaps {{yo|HJ Mitchell}} can offer some insight into that? ] ] 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 18:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
			:::::I think that's hardly adequate per ]. ] (]) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	*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)
			::::::Well,I blocked several of them a while ago, I think following a thread on checkuder-l. The creation of so many accounts, especially with borderline disruptive usernames, naturally drew suspicion. I'm not sure what Stuart was trying to do. I don't know if he intended such a good impression of a troll or LTA but that's what he achieved. ] &#124; ] 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm unaware of any accusations that I've used alts as sockpuppets, except for the decades-old allegations above which were clearly boomerang. If there are any allegations that I've done this, please be clear about them. There is a list of all alts I'm aware of at ]. ] (]) 06:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	===In plain English===
			::@]: To be clear, the TBAN-violating edits on your alts do constitute sockpuppetry as a matter of policy. Honestly I'd thought policy forbids any undisclosed alternate account use for someone subject to an editing restriction, but it looks like the letter of policy, at least, only says that for ]. I wonder if this should be clarified in policy, as it's not really possible to enforce editing restrictions against someone when you don't know what username they're using. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
	::::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)		:::Well said. The TBAN applies to the ''person behind the accounts'' regardless of which account they use. ] (]) 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: And also every single edit Stuartyeates has made since January 2024 is a sockpuppetry violation since several of the alts were blocked then (there are also blocks from earlier but they were username softblocks so can be ignored here), right? ] ] 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Smells like spam to me. I agree with Durova's suggestion. <b>] ]</b> 19:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	:: 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)
			== Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art ==
	:::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)
	::::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)
	::::If the stuff is not a reliable source, dump it. regardless of the collateral damage. --] (]) 21:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::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)
	:(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)
			Patrolling recent uploads at Commons, I noticed that Socialpsych22 (]), ChloeWisheart (]), and AlicerWang (]) all uploaded AI images and put them in what look to be school essays within a short period of time. It looks like someone might be teaching a class and using Misplaced Pages as part of it, without teaching them how Misplaced Pages article are structured or about ]. Figured I'd brink it to folks' attention here. Cheers, ] (]) 23:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Now that CheckUser has these 4 accounts as "related", can I ask an admin to block them as sockpuppets/meatpuppets:
			:{{nacc}} Even though none of the three accounts seem to be students in a ] affiliate course, you could still try asking about them at ] on the of<s>t</s><u>f</u> chance that one of the Wiki ED advisors that typically help students remembers a username. Otherwise, I don't think there's much to do if there are no serious copyright (images or text) or other policy violations. Generally, users are given a bit of leeway to work on things in their userspace and it's possible these could be good-faith drafts, i.e. not really eligible for speedy deletion per ]. I guess the "draft" that's not already in a user sandbox could be moved to one just to avoid it mistakenly being tagged for speedy deletion per U5, and perhaps welcome templates added each user's user talk page, but (at least at first glance) I'm not seeing a reason why any of these would need to be deleted. -- ] (]) 01:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)<ins>; Post edited. -- 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</ins>
	::*{{UserSummary|Cedarkey1}}
			::{{nacc}} I've moved the userspace one to draftspace and left a message on that editor's talk page asking if it's for school work, so hopefully they'll be able to give more information. ] (]) 03:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*{{UserSummary|Pputter}}
			:::Another one just appeared at ]. ] (]) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*{{UserSummary|Damslerset}}
			:The good news is that the few references I checked were real, not LLM hallucinations. Hoping the AI is only used for images, not text. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*{{UserSummary|Solknats}}
	::Thanks, --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::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)		:Is there any kind of guideline about including AI artwork in articles on here or is it just based on people's feelings in the moment at this point? --] (]) 14:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::There'sn't. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::IMHO we shouldn't have any AI artwork in articles, because leaving all "artists' livelihood" concerns aside, image-generating AI is, as I understand it, often trained using copyrighted images - which makes their creations copyright violations. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::This is not true. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Commons treats AI works as being in the public domain because copyright requires human authorship, however there's a warning about derivative works. I personally agree with The Bushranger that they should all be treated a copyvios, but that's something that's working its way through the courts, IIRC. ] (]) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I would concur with jpxg. You're incorrect on this front. By that logic, anyone who was trained in artistic methods of the another living/recently deceased artist (say ]) couldn't legally make similar paintings. ] (]) 22:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It is ''prima facie'' possible to create derivative (e.g. copyright-encumbered) works in literally any medium. This does not mean that all works are derivatives. For example, this ASCII sequence is a derivative work:
			<pre>
			_o_
			| <--- Spider-Man
			/ \
			</pre>
			This does not mean that the ASCII character set ''itself'' infringes copyright, nor that all ASCII sequences infringe copyright. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Note: I have informed the ] of this discussion. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	: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)
	::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)
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
	::::DGG, thanks for your comments -- you've studied this site more closely than anyone else.
			{{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 ].
	::::Here's another sockpuppet (based on edits, not checkuser):
	::::*{{UserSummary|Natsnew}}
	::::Can some admin block it? Thanks.
			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 ].}}
	::::Also, it looks like this has been spammed crosswiki:
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::*]
			:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::*]
			* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::*]
			*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::*]
			*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::*]
			*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
			:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block. ==
	::::Articles:
	::::*]
	::::*]
	::::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
			See ].
	Yikes! on this Misplaced Pages plus 200 to 250 more on other projects:
			This user created an undoubtedly spammy page, and deleting it was justifiable. However, they were also issued an indef hard block tagged as {{tl|uw-spamublock}} by ]. There is no username violation, therefore this is a bad block. While I understand asking some questions, trying to educate a user as to why their deleted content was not appropriate, I don't understand why multiple admins, specifically ] and ] did not simply undo the obviously bad block.
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
			The username has no obvious or even implied connection to the subject the user was writing about, therefore there was no blatant violation of the username policy, so the block was invalid. Whether the blocking admin chose the wrong setting by accident or on purpose, it was a manifestly incorrect block. I am not at all comfortable with multiple admins seeing this and letting them remain blocked while they wait for the blocking admin to come by and explain an obviously incorrect action.
	Here's another IP that was heavily used:
	*{{IPSummary|24.94.139.230}}
			Just to be clear, I've already undone the block, this is more about admins holding each other accountable and being willing to reverse obviously wrong decisions where a user is blocked without justification. ] ] 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			: You have unilaterally undone the block. You could have waited for Jimfbleak to consent to the unblock. A block for advertising or promotion would have been legitimate. ] (]) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Apparently an admin previously okayed the addition of these links. See these March 2007 discussions:
			::The block reasoning was manifestly invalid, and we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page. ] ] 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*]
			:::Hi there! As was mentioned below, I am a fairly new administrator (September) and am still learning the ropes. I often try to be kind and see the best in editors when they've been blocked. In the month or so I've been helping out with unblocks, I haven't seen your name around. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you! ] (]) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*]
			::::Well, I actually just changed my name and my sig, but also I've been more active at AFD, and on the other end of the blocking process at ]. I do think it is a shame that so few admins work unblock requests, when it is only a few people, their opinions become ''de facto'' policy, which isn't good. I do know you are a fairly new admin, as I was one of the first dozen supporters at your RFA, under my then-username ]. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't like what I see here.
	::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
			::::What concerns me is that you don't seem to have questioned the username violation aspect of this block at all. You could see the deleted page, and could see that it had no connection to the username, and that the name is clearly a common first name with some numbers around it. Being able to see and correct obvious administrative errors is part of the job, in particular when reviewing unblock requests from brand-new users. ] ] 03:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::@], let's say she had, and she reversed the block instead of asking about the connection to the company. When that editor then recreates their spam page and is indeffed as an advertising-only account, and an irritated admin swings by her talk page to chew her out, are you going to stick up for her? -- ] (]) 04:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Thanks for asking. Yes I would. However, you've misrepresented what happened. Again I will assume it is an simple mistake, but {{tq|asking about the connection to the company}} is not what she did, she ignored that aspect entirely. It was 331dot who finally raised a question about it. ] ] 04:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::What? {{tq|Hello there! Can you tell me why you were interested in creating the Tripleye article? Do you have any connections with Tripleye?}} How is this not asking about the connection to the company? -- ] (]) 06:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Ok, My bad, I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about asking how the username relates to the company, which as far as anyone can tell it does not. ] ] 06:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::No indeed. What I'm saying is that, if Significa liberdade ''had'' unblocked without first determining whether the editor had a COI and educating them on what that would mean for their editing on Misplaced Pages, chances are very high that the editor would return to the same behaviour - creating AI-scented promotional articles. If that happened, someone would again CSD them, and I expect they would be blocked ''again'' (this time with more accurate rationale). Maybe after a few more warnings, maybe not. Probably some flak for SL, either as a direct "wtf are you doing, that editor had an obvious COI" talk page message, or a passive-aggressive swipe at her in an edit summary or block rationale or something. This would be a worse outcome in every way than taking the time to check in with the blocking admin and figure out whether the editor has a COI or not before unblocking. -- ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Ah I'd no idea you'd changed your name. ] (]) 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:So, it wasn't even a posted article, but just a sandbox? Why couldn't the editor have had it pointed out to them that there needed to be improvements to fix the issues? I also don't agree with the whole "the admin who did a thing had to show up and agree or comment before you can do anything" nonsense. This entire thing seems overbearing, ] and just poor admin conduct altogether. ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			::@], that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: ] and ]. -- ] (]) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	: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)
			:::The problem with said policy being the text {{tq|are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators}}, as we can see from the above case and in many other cases (GreenLipstickLesbian has an example list below). There really is not a reason to '''presume''' that admins carefully consider their actions, personally. Particularly when that consideration is not showcased from an action in the first place. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I left a note explaining our rules for new articles about companies. That’s usually a good first step when a new editor writes a promotional article.
			:I can no longer see deleted contributions but all I see mentioned on 82James82’s talk page is a deleted sandbox. My understanding is that we are more tolerant of subpar material in sandboxes than article space. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That is my understanding as well. It wasn't submitted to AFC or anything, just a sandbox, and if it had been submitted at AFC they would've rejected it, not blocked the user. This was the users's first edit, and they got an instant no-warning indef hard block, and when they appealed they got an interrogation session instead of a reversal of the unjustified block. ] ] 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The ideal admin, in my mind, considers the protection of new editors to be one of their highest duties. They should ] to prevent or undo blocks. An admin who leans toward blocking without warning, or leans toward refusing unblocks when the editor expresses good faith, is more dangerous than a thousand vandals. ] (]) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Good deletion by JFB, bad block by JFB, and good unblock by <s>JSS</s> Beeb. '''But''' after the unblock, there no attempt at all to discuss this with JFB, SL, or 331 before coming here. Couldn't we try that first? Shouldn't we? ] (]) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I think we need to have more public discussions about the community's expectation with regard to the treatment of new users. I know you have concerns that the intent of such discussions is to escalate matters, but my intent is the opposite. The two recent recalls happened because the admin corps did not effectively hold colleagues accountable. If we establish a public consensus here that clarifies that that is something we do want from admins, that should decrease the chances of further ugly recall proceedings. ] ] 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::My user talk is hardly not public. ] (]) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. ]] 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(non-admin nosy parker comment) Significa Liberdade is one of our newest admins, so I think it's completely understandable that she would be nervous about going against two long-standing administrators. I think, @], discussing this with her first would have been a good idea.
			:331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined. They do demonstrate a pattern of finding reasons not to overturn suboptimal blocks, and that's a pattern you should maybe think about changing. I know you made each of these declines in good faith, and you accepted that they other administrators had made them in good faith. And I didn't go hunting for these- these were already on my radar for different reasons, and I made a note of them. Sorry for the dates being all out of place.
			:* This user was indeffed for "disruptive editing", because on their twentieth edit they added "]" to a plant that grew in south east Europe. (But was their twentieth edit and they'd never been told about redlinked categories before- just welcomed with a 4im vandalism warning for adding ] to an American surname article. No, I'm not kidding). In their unblock request, they said {{tq|I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.}}. 331dot declined the request, saying {{tq|Once you have gained a better understanding of policies, and have an edit you wish to make, please request unblock at that time}}.
			:* This sock block was overturned by @] (with the rationale {{tq|This block is clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts}}), but 331dot had declined the initial unblock request using the justification {{tq|You used one account to comment on the talk page of the other, this makes it seem like you are multiple peopleI see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}}. (For clarification, the user never hid the fact they used two accounts. I don't see any ], neither did JBW, so I don't know how 331dot did).
			:* This user was no-warning indeffed as NOTHERE due to their edits to the common.js/monobook.css page, and because the blocking admin seemingly did not notice the fact that the account also made several minor grammatical corrections to mainspace articles, had fixed formatting errors, and added cleanup tags. 331dot declined their unblock, saying {{tq| This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia.}} (What vandalism or disruptive editing?)
			:* This user was no-warning indeffed for making tables in a wikiproject. (No, I'm not kidding). A more experienced editor confirmed that they'd asked the other editor to assist in projectspace. 331dot declined to unblock them, saying {{tq|It's not at all obvious to me that's why you are here.}}. No, I don't get all the Wikiproject people either, but the community consensus says that yes, those editors are ].
			:TL;DR: {{tq|I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}} is not a good attitude towards unblocks. We <em>want</em> editors to come back, and learn from their mistakes. We don't demand perfection. ] (]) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yikes! <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::The decline reason for Pbnjb1, with Yamla ''enforcing'' said provision no less, seems shamelessly punitive. Only unblocking when they say they have an edit to make? Just wow.... &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::''That'' block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- ] (]) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I will also point out their unblock denial at ], where a new editor who makes what appear to be respectful inquiries is accused of ] (frankly, I don't think they're POV pushing so much as just being polite, which we should encourage) and blocked for sockpuppetry with no further explanation of any sockpuppetry at all, and with a CU stating there is no evidence at all. That editor, by the way, still has not been unblocked, despite being willing to discuss concerns civilly with other editors and with administrators and neither has ] (the 4th example listed). ] <sup>(]) </sup> 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: To be fair, there are only two options with that user - (a) they ''are'' a sock/troll/LTA, and (b) they are someone who is familiar with Misplaced Pages, perhaps editing as an IP, who made the spectacularly bad decision to create an account and head straight for ANI to vote for banning Fram (and you would have thought in that situation they would have ''known'' it would look suspicious). In that context, the CU data being negative may not be the positive thing it might look like, as if they are the former they probably ''would'' know how to avoid CU issues. Yes, we should AGF, but I can see why people didn't in that case. The other cases may be more problematic, though. ] 09:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::: How can you see why people didn't? There is no "obvious evidence to the contrary" unless I'm missing something, the evidence presented is entirely circumstantial and non-obvious. ] (]) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: {{u|Horse Eye&#39;s Back}} You wouldn't be even ''slightly'' suspicious of a brand new editor that dived into an ANI block discussion with one of their first few edits? I would. ] 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: The guideline isn't slightly suspicious its obvious evidence. As a non-admin I would also have to temper any suspicion I had with being found liable for biting a newcomer, hence even when I'm almost entirely certain I still have to be open and respectful (and to just walk away when I can't actually prove anything). I do think that we tend to be pretty harsh with newcomers... If they're not good editors we ding them for being incompetent net negatives and if they're good we start calling them puppets. With all honesty I can say that I don't envy you admins though, the inherent conflict between being swift and severe with socks and AGF, BITE, etc is one of the great questions we face as a community. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::: No, which is why I didn't block them (I saw the edit when it was made). Looking at their previous few edits - using @ in their first edit, spelling lead as "lede", diving straight into AMPOL, that ''is'' a judgment call someone had to make. ] 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::@] hold up, surely spelling lead as "lede" is evidence that they ''aren't'' a long-time wikipedian? We spell it "lead". It's American journalists who spell it "lede". -- ] (]) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I see most editors refer to "lede" not "lead", which while I can't stand the terminology personally is well documented as a concept per ]. It is therefore not indication of an editors' experience, ever. ] (]) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::The linked page says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and seems to overall document that we use lead not lede. ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::People using "lede" on Misplaced Pages is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I see plenty of long-standing editors use it, so I also don't take it as indicative of anything nefarious. &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::@] agreed, I hate it. ] ] 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think there's probably a conversation about how unblocks are handled that is worth having, but I'm sure having trouble getting fired up about this unblock in particular. An editor makes a blatantly promotional LLM-generated page, which is deleted; once they're blocked, two admins politely ask about the editor's possible connection to the company. It looks to me like it was headed for an unblock. No one's been rude or made threats, including the editors who dropped templated notices earlier. This looks better to me than ''most'' interactions I see between newcomers writing promo and experienced editors. -- ] (]) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{cot|Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin}}
			<pre>
			== Tripleye ==
			Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules.
			The company equips engineering teams with the tools needed to enable fully autonomous vehicles or specific autonomous functionalities. Its camera-based approach, rather than relying on LiDAR, delivers unmatched visual detail, scalability, affordability, and versatility.
			By leveraging advanced computer vision and AI technologies, Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems tailored to their unique operational demands. The company’s patented technology, developed by an experienced team with a history of groundbreaking research and innovation, outperforms other solutions on the market.
			Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City.
			== History ==
			Tripleye’s origins trace back to early work by Jens Schick and David Wegner as far back as 2013. Jens Schick, a pioneer in autonomous vehicle technology, built the first autonomous car at Daimler in 1994 as part of a groundbreaking project called ‘Prometheus.’ This was the first-ever autonomous vehicle, predating the 2004 DARPA challenge by a decade and marking Europe’s leading role in AV innovation.
			After Daimler, Jens joined Bosch to establish its vision group from scratch and later launched Myestro Interactive, a research company focused on autonomous vehicle sensing technologies. In 2019, Jens met Francois Dubuisson, a seasoned entrepreneur with extensive experience in building startups. Recognising the transformative potential of Jens’ innovations, Francois joined forces with him to start a new venture, and Tripleye was born.
			== Technology ==
			Tripleye’s technology is built on a unique camera-based approach that offers unmatched visual detail, scalability, and cost efficiency compared to traditional LiDAR systems. By combining advanced computer vision and AI-driven analytics, Tripleye enables the development of fully autonomous systems and customised functionalities tailored to diverse industry needs.
			With a robust foundation of patented innovations and decades of expertise, the company delivers hardware and software modules designed to outperform market competitors. This technology is ideal for industries requiring precise, adaptable, and scalable solutions.
			== Impact ==
			Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including:
			* Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions.
			* Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups.
			These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.
			== References ==
			* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech)
			* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024)
			* (https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)
			</pre>
			{{cob}}
			:One thing worth all of us considering, when dealing with potential spammers, is that if someone is using ChatGPT, as James appears to have here, that makes it a lot harder to infer their motivation, for better and for worse. That is to say, someone could be a completely inept spammer using ChatGPT to masquerade as a moderately ] spammer, <em>or</em> could be a good-faith editor who's made the foolish decision to rely on ChatGPT and has inadvertently used a spammy tone as a result. In this case, the deletion was definitely within reason under ], but it's a good illustration of why blocking on the first offense of spam is usually overkill, unless it's like blatant link-spamming ("for the best online slots click " etc.).{{pb}}Jimfbleak, I'm wondering if you maybe have some script misconfigured, or if there's a misunderstanding on policy here, as pertains to username blocks? I noticed ] yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{tl|uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as ''Onüç Kahraman'' is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Looks like they were using ], a script I also use. It is somewhat easy to select the wrong drop downs, or to use the default selections on autopilot. ] (]) 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::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)
	:::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)
	::::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)		*I was prepared to ask the blocking admin to unblock but I wanted the user to show that they knew their text was promotional. I didn't see a username issue, but I'm not perfect so I was asking Jimfbleak what it was, if anything. ] (]) 22:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:You've been working around username issues a long time, and doing a lot of good work. I think you have the necessary experience and judgement to see that there was not a blatant violation here. I really feel like we're falling down in our treatment of new users who aren't behaving maliciously but just don't understand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. I assure you I'm not trying to have anyone burned at the stake here, I just think we need to address these issues and be more willing to undo obviously incorrect actions without waiting as long as it takes for the admin who made the error to explain themselves. ] ] 23:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::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)
			*::I get it, but sometimes I like to make sure that I haven't missed something. ] (]) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I'll repeat something I said in {{slink|User_talk:Tamzin#Administrative_culture}}: {{tq2|I think the root problem here is with ]. It begins <q>Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators.</q> I mean. ''Fucking seriously?'' Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration ]. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block. &nbsp;...{{pb}}So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If another admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I don't think the allowed actions in ] are all that problematic, though I do agree with you about the presumptions in the preamble. You can reverse if the following are met:
			*:::# Good cause
			*:::# Careful thought
			*:::# ''If the admin is '''presently''' available'': consultation. So shoot them a message, and if they don't respond within a reasonably short period of time, proceed anyway
			*:::Those three steps are not very restrictive. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::They might not be very restrictive in theory, but they are in practice. It's far easier to get desysopped for a bad unblock than for a bad block. In effect the rule becomes that you need to not just try to talk with the admin, but actually need their permission. That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy. Or to put it more simply: We can't all be Beeblebrox. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Thank god for Beeblebrox then... We can't have all the admins form a ]... Somebody has to be the "bad brick" for the larger society to function. ] (]) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::{{tqb|That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy.}}Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to having this become a policy. Of course, there should be some latitude for the blocking admin's discretion, but a block with no ] explanation should be able to be reverted by another admin. ] (] · ]) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::We've had a parallel to this idea in deletion policy (]) for like forever, and the world's stubbornly refused to end. I do worry somewhat about the effect it'd have with ]. —] 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::As one of the relative newbies around here, I've kind of assumed that the RAAA thing with unblocks is a hangover from the Bad Old Days of wandering cowboy admins who needed rules like this to keep the wheel-warring in check. I don't tend to mind following this gentlemen's agreement, since I value the second look. But it's the admins who make the bad blocks that are also the least likely to be affable about you lifting them. Then we end up with the problem Tamzin's described. -- ] (]) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*It's great to welcome new users and assume good faith, but Misplaced Pages will be neck-deep in spam if junk like the above is not handled firmly. If I had seen it, I would have ground my teeth and moved on because why should I get heaps from people who think there is value in "{{tq|These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.}}" There is more and more of this stuff, and soon people will be able to ask an AI bot to author and post their fluff on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Literally nobody is arguing that the page was acceptable or that the deletion was incorrect. The issue is the subsequent block and making the user wait, blocked, until it was convenient for the blocking admin to respond. If you found yourself blocked for reasons that were manifestly incorrect, would you not expect and hope that reviewing admins would reverse it? ] ] 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::If I had been the user who posted that advert as their first edit, I would know why I had been blocked. ] (]) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::You seem to be entirely missing the point that this was an indef hard block because of the supposed combination of promotional edits ''and'' a promotional username, when there is literally no issue of any kind with the user name. We can AGF that this was simply an misclick, but we shouldn't pretend there is a real issue with the name because of it. ] ] 04:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*FWIW, I try to educate users as to why I have deleted their hard work with ] or ]. For the most part, I prefer to give them the opportunity to mend their ways in the context of ]. ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' It is important to try to facilitate that emergence, though sometimes a block is required to do so.] (]) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I want to second that ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' (well, perhaps a slightly modified ''Inside every disruptive editor is potentially a constructive editor trying to get out.'') One of the people brought on to talk about wikipedia in a recent ] piece described a vandal to core editor conversion sparked in part by effective and positive engagement on their talk page. ] (]) 02:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I do think we, and I include myself here, have gotten too hardcore about blocking over one or two promo edits, in particular when they aren't even in article space. I'm working on some proposals to address this right now. ] ] 04:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Something that reiterates "we tell new users that their sandbox is for screwing around, don't CSD them for screwing around in it" would be hugely welcome. -- ] (]) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I just spent a few minutes chasing my tail looking for anything that makes it clear where the line is, and all I came up with is that you can't have attack content, copyvios, or other types of "not acceptable anywhere, period type of content. I didn't see anything about promotional content in sandboxes. If I've missed it somehow, someone please let me know where it is. ] ] 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{tl|Db-spamuser}} covers userpages, which I guess personal sandboxes are a subset of, that's all I could find. ] ] 05:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::No, there isn't anything clearly explaining where the line is, that's my point. I've seen quite a lot of "good faith" promo editing tagged for G11/U5 in sandboxes, editors blocked for having promo there, etc etc. I'll happily do the promo username+edits blocks or vaporize chatGPT nonsense, but deleting/blocking someone for sandbox edits when the template right in front of their eyes says it's for experimentation is really over-the-top bitey, imo. -- ] (]) 06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Maybe it's time we '''warn''' these users that sandboxes are not a completely safe haven to test whatever they want, because as I see it, the ] did not bring up the reasons why one edits in the sandbox might be deleted (whether from U5 or G11 or sth else). ]<sup>(])</sup> 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Please think about the long-term consequences of a rule saying that anyone can post anything so long as it is in their user space, or marked as "sandbox" or whatever. Will we wait a year to see if an SPA refashions their spam into an FA, then (if not) add a delete request tag, then discuss the deletion request? That won't scale. ] (]) 05:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. ] ] 06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It seems pretty clear to me: it's potentially a gate to letting spam "articles" stick around 'because they're in sandboxes'. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::If a sandbox is ''clearly'' G11, and IMHO we've become overly inclusive of any COI editing as G11, then it should be deleted. But the creator needs to be educated as to ''why.'' And yes, I share the concern about people using Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I know some would leap at any loophole. ] (]) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{yo|Beeblebrox}} Ah, yes. The Ghost of Wheel-Wars Past. Before my time really, but you can still hear the chains rattle after nearly two decades. ] (]) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::As {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} correctly surmised, I use Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage script, and I'm aware that it's easy to select the wrong drop down, so I always check. However, it appears that in this case I still managed to fat finger an obviously incorrect rationale, ''mea culpa'', I can only apologise for that. I don't think that the G11 was incorrect, there's no policy that exempts spamming in userspace. I intended to block the account as being likely an UPE, given that their first edit was a full, highly promotional page about a company, and then left it for uninvolved admins to review the block. If asked, I always accept the reviewing admin's decision unless, rarely, they have missed something like socking or previous malpractice. I apologise again for the error I made, although I can't help thinking it could have been sorted out on my talk page rather than through ANI ] - ] 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Next steps===
			:::::::::::I frankly agree. This didn't need to be brought here. He made a mistake- apparently I made a mistake by asking him to confirm that he made a mistake(even though clicking unblock bring up a clear message '''"Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error'''") okay. We'll do better next time. ] (]) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	Here's what I think needs to happen:
			:::::::::::I realize that's for "accounts you control" but clearly there's some intention here that we need to consult with the blocking admin in general. ] (]) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	#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.
			:::::::::::Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	#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
			::::::::::::Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. ] (]) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	#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.
			:::::::::::::Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. ] (]) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	#Once the links are removed, I propose we blacklist these domains at ]. Again, that assumes consensus here.
			::::::::::::::Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. ] (]) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	#Articles:
			:::::::::::::::If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) ] (]) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	##] -- not notable; take to AfD
			::::::::::::::::{{reply|331dot}} as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and ''re''blocked them, ''that'' would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. ]'']''] 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	##] -- probably not notable;<small></small> take to AfD for community discussion
			:::::::::::::::And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. ] (]) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	##] -- notable.<sup></sup> Article needs rewrite, however.
			*On a related note, I think we need to sit down with ] and ] and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs ''trying to do volunteer work'' seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	I estimate this cleanup may take 10 to 20 editor-hours.
			*"we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.{{pb}}There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Misplaced Pages for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —] 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I vandalized Misplaced Pages with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Misplaced Pages because some grace was offered to them when'' they'' were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that , because who just ''knows'' wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? ''Very suspicious''.
			*:"They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the ''possibility'' to become one. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::There's a difference between vandalizing Misplaced Pages for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point {{u|Cryptic}} refers to). ] (]) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::{{ec}}As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —] 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to ]'s collections of your bad judgement? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. ] (]) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I fail to see how {{tq|"331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined"}} is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged <s>would</s> could be over-pinging. ] (]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::{{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::]: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. ] (]) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::@] @]. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. ] (]) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. ] ] 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). ] (]) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- ] (]) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once ] style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would ], rendering my point somewhat moot. ] (]) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::{{tq|I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor}} me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- ] (]) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. ] (]) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*: {{tq| But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so}}. I present {{u|JohnCWiesenthal}} as a counterexample. {{pb}} Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. ] ] 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at {{no redirect|IntelliStar}} which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. ] (]) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; {{tq|Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems}} is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For ''advertising'' of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. ] (]) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at ]. ] ] 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking ===
	Others thoughts? --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
			* Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was ], exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. ] (]) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*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)
			*:We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. ] (]) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::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)		*::99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. ] (]) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::*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)
			*::::Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. ] (]) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::*PS Just ran ''"Stanley L Klos" site:en.wikipedia.org'' on Google and found about 430 hits, ] ''']''' 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
			*:I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- ] (]) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by ] and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- ] (]) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. ] ] 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. {{tq|I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others.}} -- ] (]) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Or, better, {{tq|My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question.}} -- ] (]) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::@] probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially {{tq|"The specifics of the example isn't the point,..."}}. ] (]) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::{{tq|if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here}} - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a ''long'' time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- ] (]) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic <s>]</s> ]. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per ] and remaining ]. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Misplaced Pages as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. ] (]) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			Looking through 331dot declining unblocks reveals quite a few instances where either 331dot or the blocking admin takes an extremely newbie-unfriendly approach:
	:/me dusts off some old tools:
			*] has now been unblocked by Philknight, but the approach by 331dot was not very helpful or newbie-friendly
	::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 ]
			*]: no warnings, immediate indef block by ] for a misguided edit (not vandalism, just auto-promo): no idea why a warning wasn't tried first
	:those are current numbers of links to famousamericans.net. Im removing those on en now. ] 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
			*], no warning, immediate indef block by ], reasonable unblock request, denied by 331dot. This is the apparently unforgiveable, no warnings needed edit.
	:::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)
			*], I can understand their frustration, I don't see the "blatant spam" they were posting, they were posting references with relevant information, but these included commercial websites as well as neutral ones. I don't see any company they tried to promote, no spam text, ... just a helpful editor who hasn't yet given up on editing here despite a way too harsh block by ] and an unhelpful unblock decline by 331dot
	::::That's a good idea, Gordon.
			*] incorrect sock block, unblocked thanks to PhilKnight, but previous interactions with 331dot, including a declined unblock, were again rather unhelpful, just blindly believing that the block has to be correct
			These are all from this month, from spotchecking some of their declined unblocks (a number of other declines were perfectly allright). ] (]) 10:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::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)
			:I blocked based on ] combined with promotional edit. Name represents a website that functions to generate income and the user posted a link to the site. Is that kind of block incorrect? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	I'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)
			::Name of website (blog) is name of actual person, DJ Martin Dus. Link they posted was informative and relevant. The reaction to this is not some gentle steering towards "perhaps better a new username" (dubious if that was even necessary) and "please don't post links to your own blog", but an immediate indef block, and a declined unblock with a request for basically a complete plan for their future editing career. Apparently their error was much more heinous than someone posting blatant vandalism, who gets 3 or 4 chances before being blocked, and first gets clear warnings that it will happen. ] (]) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:] 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)
			::@] it was well within the bounds of policy and reason but the name could be a stage name whuch changes the equation slightly. Ask 100 different admins, you'll get 100 different answers.
			::I stand by my block of PaulSem based on the information I had at the time but my threshold for undoing my ''own'' block is essentially a coherent appeal or promise not to repeat the problem action so I've unblocked now I've seen that they appealed. That's not a criticism of 331dot because my standard for reversing ''another'' admin's action is much higher. ] &#124; ] 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for the unblock, but I really don't see why that editor didn't just warrant some guidance, at worst warnings, for some of the links they included. I may well have missed it, but their latest edit added , which you reverted, after which you blocked. ] (]) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::If the edit wasn't promotional enough for you to even revert, it probably wasn't blatant enough to call for a block. Or to turn it around, this is like when I see another admin tag all of a user's creations as spam, or vandalism, or even attack pages instead of deleting them themselves; and after I delete the pages and go to deal with the user, I find that the same admin had already blocked. How can you be confident enough to indef a user while still being unsure enough about their content - the ''reason you blocked them'' - that you need confirmation from another admin? —] 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::The lack of reversion was an error on my part. However, I do acknowledge that I had only seen the name as the name of a website, and not also as a stage name. I have been slow on reversing the block after seeing the objection raised here, because one of the lessons I learned from a previous block that I posted on this page requesting review, showed that acting too quickly on an objection can create havoc, when the objection —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Itself becomes controversial. (I am on flaky connection right now, sorry for the broken up message). Will unblock, revert edit, and discuss either user. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{u|Cryptic}}, I see things somewhat differently, and I am among the administrators who often block for promotional username/promotional editing and then tag the content, usually G11, for review by another administrator, under the principle that two heads are better than one. In my mind, it is a check on myself to help prevent me from becoming too stringent and if another administrator questions my tag or my block, that helps me adhere to community norms. ] (]) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::So, what, you see a promotional page being made, figure it's bad enough to block the creator, but aren't sure it's worth deleting? What do you do if the deletion's declined? Leave the user blocked, even though what they wrote was acceptable? Unblock? How do you rationalize ''either'' of those outcomes as ok? —] 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{u|Cryptic}}, the answer is clear to me but I will spell it out for you. If another administator disagrees with my assessment that the content in question should be deleted (or that the editor should have been blocked), then that administator and I would have a conversation. That could lead to content being draftified instead of being deleted. It could lead to a hard block being converted to a soft block. It could result in me concluding that I misunderstood and unblocking with an apology. It would not result in me ignoring the situation and leaving a contradictory outcome unresolved. As I said, I believe that two heads are better than one and I do not recall any other admimstrator chastising me with, "you should have deleted that spam yourself!". ] (]) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::@]: Why not tag the page for deletion, then warn the user? ] (]) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::{{u|Significa liberdade}}, because I am an administator and overtly promotional usernames are not permitted and call for a block. And an account with an overtly promotional username combined with creation of overtly promotional content calls for a hard block. I do not engage in friendly negotiations with spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia. ] (]) 03:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::]: Apologies, on a re-read I realized you mentioned username+promo. I thought you were just talking about a new editor creating promotional pages. ] (]) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::And Cullen is of course correct by our current policies and practices. That's where I think the problem lies, not with individual admins but with the guidance provided to them, which I have been following for years myself. I do think {{tq|spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia}} is going a bit far in many cases and we need to try warning and education as a tool of first resort, as we do with vandals, instead of jumping straight to a block. I am very willing to delete spam, but I have come to believe that the no-warning blocking is not really productive or fair. ] ] 03:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The best solution might be the simplest one: we need some new blood dealing with blocks and unblocks. Either admins who work in other areas should pay some attention to this, or new admins with a newbie-advocate philosophy need to be given the tools to work on block appeals. ...any volunteers? ] (]) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Not an admin myself, but I'm always happy to help give advice to users making block appeals, and to make sure they're on the right track! ] (] · ]) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@] is one of those newbie-advocate types who has taken up this work recently, and I've been on it as well. It needs as much new blood as it can get. It's also really helpful for non-admins who know their way around to help out the ones who have clearly misunderstood something (eg, someone blocked for copyright, a promo editor who needs to agree to abide by paid disclosure, etc). -- ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Happy to help. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			Help is surely needed, as the usual suspects just continue in the same vein, e.g. with ]. That editor needed warnings and guidance, not an indef block and and a declined unblock. No idea why was reverted, and while their addition was a promo link, it's hard to find fault with the reasoning from their edit summary. 5 Edits of which 2 were good and 3 promolinks but relevant and understandable = no warnings and indef block? Gee, I wonder why we have such a hard time finding new editors. ] (]) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			Are there deleted edits or something else I can't see here, there's nothing further in the filter log? ] makes two edits on the 11th, gets warned (okay), makes no further edits, and gets blocked indef a full week later on the 18th by ]. Why??? ] (]) 18:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			:There are no deleted contributions. — ] (]) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			:I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- ] (]) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically {{tq|someone making a living by backlinking a website for a client}}and not just someone who is ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Misplaced Pages's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. ] ] 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. ] (]) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. ] (] · ]) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ] (]) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. ] (] · ]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check ''every subsequent edit'' manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? ] (]) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. ] (] · ]) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::@], I think that's exactly the sort of thing @] is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he ''shouldn't'' be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- ] (]) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. ] (] · ]) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. ] &#124; ] 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::{{ping|Novem Linguae}} as the first technically minded admin I thought of, is this even within the realms of feasibility? ] (]) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.
			*::::::::{{tq|Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful}}. A user script could be written that runs itself on pages such as recent changes, the watchlist, and article histories, and highlights edits by users that have been added to a wiki page containing a list of users to highlight. Or highlights edits by users who have been unblocked within the last month. So yeah, that's technically possible. ] is a good place to request user scripts if y'all decide to go that route. –] <small>(])</small> 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::{{tqb|{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.}}Yep, which is why I thought limiting its availability to admins watchlisting users they personally unblocked could mitigate the ] risks. Even more if it's limited to unblocks from the last, say, 30 days (although giving a specific timeframe might be an incentive for these editors to just wait it out, so a specific number of edits that will show up on the watchlist might be better).{{pb}}For your second point, a script could very much be feasible. I think there's a way to retrieve a user's logs by script to check the date of their last unblock, and from there it's just like an admin/etc. highlighter script. I might do it actually, if I find the time for it (and everyone, feel free to remind me if it looks like I'm forgetting!) ] (] · ]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::For reference, see ]. ] (]) 06:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			====Examples: HJ Mitchell====
	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.
			{{ping|HJ Mitchell}}, per ], can you please explain why you blocked ] despite there being no edits between the warning they received for their first two edits, and your block a week later? ] (]) 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:HJMitchell addresses some thinking behind the block in ]. Best, ] (]) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	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 />
	<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small>
			::Thanks, but the same happens with other editors as well. ], warned on 11 December, one edit (not constructive but not problematic either) to their own user page the same day, suddenly blocked a week later? Nothing in the filter log, no deleted pages. If it was a sock, an indication in the block log would help. ] (]) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:My ''"state"'', eh??
			:::That one was reported to AIV (which is where most of my blocks come from) late last night. I misread the timestamps and hadn't realised they were a week old but didn't see anything to be gained by unblocking. ] &#124; ] 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
			*]: none of their edits after their one vandalism warning were reverted, they seemed like a good faith editor, but still you indef blocked them. ] (]) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::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
			*:That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. ] &#124; ] 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::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 />
			*::Except they weren't, after the warning they removed or merged sections ''once'' and then proceeded to add (at first glance acceptable) sources to the same article. They were a good faith editor trying to improve an article, probably making errors along the way. ] (]) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small>
			*:::This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @], could you please have another look at this block? – ] 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::@] (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. ] &#124; ] 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Why is this here and not on the user's talk page? If you have a concern with an individual user, as is the case here, you should first try to resolve your issues with the individual user. That's step one of dispute resolution. ] (]) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I agree. I think this whole section should be closed and discussion moved there.
			*: Somehow, I don't think that: ''"But we think our torches and pitchforks will be more effective here"'', is (or should be) a valid reason to skip steps in ] in this case. - and that's about as much AGF as I think I can give in this instance. Regardless of initial intent, this is starting to come across as a ]. The appearance of which would seem to be undermining whatever goals that those concerned may have. - <b>]</b> 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::To those concerned, it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue. That is, in itself, a valid perspective. Class-borne exasperation is not itself collective discrimination or punishment.
			*::If you are implying this is shaping up to be a witch hunt, I have yet to see instances of magical thinking or confessions produced under torture. Instead, I see reasonable evidence for users' interrelated, reasonable concerns. Are people on WPO rude? Yes, and I see no bad faith in their incivility here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Not seen as magical thinking or torture? Welcome to ] : )
			*:::And your comments do not address that this should have been - and should be - carried out on the admin's talk page, as ] noted. - <b>]</b> 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Remsense's comment directly addressed that, e.g. {{tqq|it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue}} and {{tqq|interrelated, reasonable concerns}}. ] (]) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Looks at the thread title ("Examples: HJ Mitchell"), and your and their comments. Uh huh, sure. Care to try again? - <b>]</b> 23:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Remsense's comment directly addressed whether this should be carried out on the admin's talk page, by using words such as {{tqq|not ... individualized}} and {{tqq|interrelated}}. ] (]) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Endorse most blocks; unblock Anushka Sweety Shetty'''. Procedurally, the OP should have discussed on talk with the user directly first; but setting that aside. For the first example, these are obviously low quality spam external links. All blocks are reversible given a block appeal. This is clearly bread and butter admin blocking and within discretion, and helps keep the quality of the encyclopedia high that we use discretion to quickly dispatch obvious troublemakers and spammers. The blocking policy is not a strict legal document, but a set of guidelines. The norms and practices should be followed, but not religiously. This seems like a good example where the logic is sound and where the action can be reversed easily if someone legit gets hit by a block, but it seems to me that this is just promotional spam. As to the second block, the account was evidently a vandalism-only account. We don't require warnings for this, AFAIK. Finally, I do think that Anushka Sweety Shetty was accidentally mis-tagged as vandalism, and should be unblocked unless there's a good reason that I don't understand. However, one mistake is not a big deal and can be easily reversed. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::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.
			====Examples: 331dot====
	:::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 />
			{{ping|331dot}} per ], can you please explain why you declined the unblock of good faith editor ]? It seems that they needed guidance, not blocking in the first place, and certainly not a declined unblock with a rather unfriendly, unhelpful message. ] (]) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small>
			:I'm not sure what it was that was "unfriendly" about my message. I try to be matter of fact and succinct, perhaps that comes across as unfriendly, but I'm not trying to be. As the blocking admin said when they removed the block, "we don't link to sites that sell things". That's spam. I was looking for some understanding of that point. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, but we've had a massive backlog most of this year and I was trying to keep it down. ] (]) 10:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Here are my posts as discussed above
			*:"we don't link to sites that sell things" except that we do this all the time of course. This was very clearly a good faith editor (their last edit before the block was ), not some editor interested in adding spam. Your reply "You were posting blatant spam, the issue is not poor references." was clearly wrong, and the editor just needed an explanation of why something like is not an acceptable source, even if it was added to be helpful and not as "blatant spam". Trying to keep down a backlog is not an excuse to deny good-faith editors their chance to edit and improve along the way because you don't have the time to actually look at what happened. ] (]) 10:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::If you're trying to offend me, it's working. I did look at what happened. Say you disagree, say I was wrong, fine. If you want the perfect admin, that's not me. But don't tell me I did things that I didn't do. ] (]) 10:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::So you looked at what happened, and ''still'' called this "blatant spam" and sufficient to decline an unblock? Then we are approaching ] territory, as you seem to be having too many of these situations. I also linked above to ], who was incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry. I presume you looked into what happened when you declined the unblock with "I think that the reason for the block is correct. " or then continued to be extremely unhelpful by countering "If you could please check my edit history, you would see that I haven't done anything malicious." with "Your making edits is in and of itself malicious as you are evading blocks." They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment. ] (]) 10:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Please tell me what the acceptable level of mistakes is so I know never to make too many. I never said anyone wasn't sincere. I didn't have access to all the information. You are assigning motives to me that I simply don't have and I don't know why you, a former admin, have it out for me. Merry Christmas. ] (]) 10:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::@] Please familiarize yourself with ]. ] (]) 16:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::I am very familiar with it, thank you. ] (]) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::I wasn't rude. I categorically, totally, in the strongest terms, reject that claim. ] (]) 10:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Okay, let's leave the rudeness matter to the side for a while. Tone is hard to convey on the internet. Let's also not accuse other editors of having it out for anybody, because when in the history of Misplaced Pages has that ever gone well?{{pb}}Just to try and steer things back on course, @], could you explain why you chose not to accept the unblock requests I posted a few days ago? And the others that Fram posted? I think understanding what your reasoning was when declining these unblocks, especially those of users such as Pbnjb1 and Cwootten13, will be useful for everybody. Mistakes are fine, but, and as an admin who monitors the unblock queue, you know this better than most, what other people want to see is genuine reflection and understanding. What went wrong in these, and what's going to happen differently next time? ] (]) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::I'm sorry but it's hard to be told I'm doing things that I'm not doing.
			*::::::* The user said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices. I would like to continue editing Misplaced Pages and request to be unblocked." They said they hadn't reviewed policies yet, and they didn't say what edits they wished to make, both of which would indicate their understanding of the reasons for the block. Quite often people say they understand when they actually don't. Yes, blocks are cheap, but trying to avoid repeat blocks is good both for the appellant and us. Nothing nefarious, nothing rude. Happy to hear what specifically I should have done differently.
			*::::::* I said "If you lose track of which account you are using, you should stick to a single account." I didn't say it was an inappropriate use. They also incorrectly said a personal attack was made against them.
			*::::::I'm happy to discuss other things with you but I fear drawing this discussion out more than it already is. ] (]) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::Okay. Here we go.
			*:::::::You selectively quoted Pbnjb1 there - which, I mean, I selectively quoted you so I can't get too mad. But they also wrote {{tq|I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.}}
			*:::::::They very obviously demonstrated that they understood the relevant policies and had read them. How much clearer did you want them to be....? Please, elaborate
			*:::::::Additionally, I don't think anybody who has seen that block has understood why it was made, because we don't do instant 4im warnings and indefs for newbies adding redcats. I don't know why you've expecting a new user to have to have understood something seasoned admins and editors are scratching their heads over. I concur with you about repeat blocks- they're bad for everybody's moral. But accusing other users of not having read policies <em>when they tell you information they could have only learnt by reading the policy?</em> I don't know what to say here.
			*:::::::For the next decline- you selectively quoted yourself. {{tq|this makes it seem like you are multiple people}}. That's inappropriate use. You did accuse them of inappropriately using multiple accounts. Again, I don't know what to say. ] (]) 11:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::Well, they said they read it and then said they didn't- what should I believe? A contradiction would suggest they didn't- but okay, I screwed up.
			*::::::::I was trying to tell them why people ''thought'' they were using them inappropriately. I guess I failed at that. ] (]) 11:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::"{{tq|then said they didn't}}" Please, back this up with a quote, because they didn't say they hadn't read the policies and guidelines. They said they would look at the Teahouse to get a better understanding. There was no contradiction. They demonstrated an understanding of the policies in the areas they'd been making mistakes in, and said they would ask for help in areas they didn't understand yet. But, because that was in the past, let's say you came across the exact same situation today. What would you do?
			*:::::::::I'll come back to the Cwooten13 block at a later date, just so we don't start spiraling off out of control. ] (]) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::They said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices"- which would suggest they hadn't yet. ] (]) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::....no? A better understanding != hasn't read something yet. In fact, the use of the comparative adjective "better" implies that they did read it, and they did understand it. Maybe not completely, but very few people understand our policies and guidelines completely, and especially not when they are a bran-new editor.
			*:::::::::::And you didn't answer my question. Let's say you see that exact same situation again. What would you do? 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::I would unblock them. I think this was just a difference in wording interpretation- which I'm happy to correct when pointed out to me. ] (]) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::So, an editor is incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry, protests his innocence, and you simply dismiss his protests without any indication why. They then point to their record of good contributions, and you again dismiss this completely and reassert that they were editing maliciously, but you weren't rude? "I didn't have access to all the information." In the first of these two blocks, you did have access to all the information, but still denied the unblock and called it blatant spam. In the second case, you didn't have all the information, but still proceeded to completely reject any possibility that the editor was right and summarily dismissed them. The issue is not "the acceptable level of mistakes" but what you do when those mistakes are pointed out. ] (]) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::I can't do anything about mistakes if you don't tell me what they are. I'm always willing to change and adjust. I've never denied this. ] (]) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::??? Seriously? Perhaps reread this whole discussion top to bottom, it lists enough of your mistakes. Or if that's too much to ask, just reread my messages from today. ] (]) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::I mean before now. "Hey, 331dot, just a friendly question asking why you did X thing when I noticed Y thing was the case". ] (]) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::So no actual reply to my post then. You claim to be willing to change and adjust, but give no indication that you understand what you did wrong. ] (]) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::"They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment." I did, but unsurprisingly many socks deny being socks. Do I get that wrong sometimes? Yes. ] (]) 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::The editor involved (nor anyone else) had any indication that you took their unblock request and explanation in any way serious, you gave no explanation at all, leaving the editor rather desperate: "Please, could you explain to me how this conclusion has been reached?", no answer. ] (]) 12:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::I have other things to do, and by the time I noticed that, someone else(a checkuser) had already engaged with them. I didn't want to pile on especially whem someone with more information was interacting with them. ] (]) 12:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::::But it should never have come to that in the first place, if you had at the very least explained your reasons for not believing them at all in either your unblock decline or in your follow-up at the latest. ] (]) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::::I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. ] (]) 12:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::::::This is actually quite illustrative. We have a situation where several people are telling you that you made mistakes and they're discussing what should be done. This seems to have come almost out of nowhere and you wish you had been given a heads up before it came to this. You're not sure exactly why it is that they're approaching things this way, and even though you're expressing that you're acting in good faith, it feels like there's nothing you can say that would satisfy them. If you're getting frustrated, that's an entirely understandable response and I don't blame you. Imagine the frustration when you're told that {{tq|I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you.}} doesn't cut it and your appeal is denied. ] (]) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::::::I see what you're trying to do here. I get it. You say it "doesn't cut it" but don't tell me why. I do tell people why or at least attempt to. We all see things differently and have different perspectives, so maybe I don't always succeed. But I try. I'm not the perfect admin certain people seem to want me to be. But turn it around and try to see what I'm saying. I'm not acting nefariously, I'm not a terrible person. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::::::::::::I don't believe you intend to cause harm. I've never done unblocking (obviously), and I imagine it's one of the more difficult admin tasks. My point is that there are parallels in terms of asking for assumptions of good faith, only that the newer editors don't always know how to express that. My suggestion, acknowledging again I've only been involved as an observer? Once a blocked editor tries to express good faith, the community as a whole should be more willing to help them express that. This is a ultimately a systematic problem. ] (]) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::::::::::::I agree with that, but that means ''more'' discussion, not less, and this thread was created because of a perception that "several admins" were "just standing by interrogating a user". It's my personal opinion, from handling and watching these over the past couple months, that repeated, snap declines are much more harmful than these longer conversations. -- ] (]) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			* Since this has devolved into focusing on single administrator's actions, I will ask that you either split this into a new discussion, move this to that admin's talk page, or collapse it as not to distract from what was supposed to be a broader discussion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I've turned it into subsections ] (]) 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: should probably be moved into relevant subsection. ] (]) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*This makes me curious, probably a good fit for the idea lab for further workshopping, but would it be an interesting idea to have a board specifically for ] questions? From what I've seen, asking on the talk page of the editor or the admin themselves gives pretty low visibility to the question and often isn't conducive to further discussion, or sometimes to getting a clear answer at all, while something like AN or ANI might be too direct or accusatory for a simple question. ] (] · ]) 12:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Perhaps the scope of ] could be expanded to include such questions? ] (]) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::It could be, although AARV carries the presumption that the action was incorrect and should be up to debate to endorse/overturn, rather than a centralized place to simply ask ] questions with more transparency than the admin's talk page (where things like ] apply). ] (] · ]) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			It's difficult to see how other admins deal with unblock requests, as only open requests are easily findable. Looking at the open requests, I see
	::::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:
			], which seems from what I can see onwiki a very weird block, but as it is based on an UTRS ticket I can't judge it completely. Still, if it was paid editing the block seems to have come 6 months after the fact, not at a time the paid editing was happening (if it ever happened), so why a block and not a warning/discussion? ] (]) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Because it was a Terms of Use violation involving UPE. I cannot say any more without violating policy and documents that I have signed. ] (]) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::William Tilghman
			::Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? ] (]) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (194 words) - 22:48, 19 November 2007
			:::I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. ] (]) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (I)
			::::Okay, I don't really understand under what circumstances that could be true, but I guess I have to accept it. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::*<nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/luciusquintuscincinnatuslamar/ </nowiki>
			:::::] (and others), it is not a UTRS ticket, it is a ] ticket (presumably a ] ticket). People who are given access to the queue sign the ] (which is the same NDA signed by editors with CUOS). Best, <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (223 words) - 06:24, 20 November 2007
			:@] I'm genuinely curious. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the ticket showed definitive evidence of UPE (because in my estimation as someone who can see the ticket, it did), do you think this is still a bad block in the way you have concerns about other spam blocks where the editor has stopped editing? I didn't become an admin to block people (I am a bit abashed I'm up to 175 blocks in my ~5 years as an admin) but I am closely following this discussion to get my own sense of community consensus about these matters. Best, ] (]) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Thomas Dale
			::If the UPE is about the deleted article, then yes, I consider it a bad block. If there is more to it, which doesn't show up in the edits, log, and filter log, then it may of course be a perfectly acceptable block. But there is, as far as I know, no reason to automatically give an indef block for UPE instead of warning editors, certainly when like here they have made many other edits which seem uncontroversial, and when the paid editing is months in the past and not repeated after the article was deleted. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::*<nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/sirthomasdale/</nowiki>
			:::I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. ] (]) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Relevance: 77.5% - 8 KB (1150 words) - 10:53, 20 November 2007
	::::James Gambier, 1st Baron Gambier
	::::* <nowiki>http://www.famousamericans.net/jamesgambier/ </nowiki>
	::::Relevance: 77.5% - 6 KB (829 words) - 17:05, 20 November 2007
	::::Charles Manly
	::::Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (332 words) - 23:18, 20 November 2007
	::::Civil War token
	::::... the spot.". Virtual American Biographies at www.famousamericans.net. Retrieved June 23, 2006. The quote found its w...
	::::Relevance: 77.5% - 9 KB (1325 words) - 11:44, 22 November 2007
	::::George Baylor
	::::Relevance: 77.5% - 3 KB (473 words) - 03:25, 23 November 2007
	::::Maria Zakrzewska
	::::Relevance: 77.5% - 2 KB (302 words) - 16:36, 23 November 2007
	::::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
			{{ping|331dot}} it turns out you were perfectly correct with this block, and at the same time not allowed by policy to convincingly explain it, which must be frustrating. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to the others who took a look at this one. I'll not bother you about similar ticket-based blocks in the future, as it is clear that I can't independently assess them, the one example I used was a perfect block, and you may not explain it in any detail anyway. ] (]) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::OR Like this - http://www.virtualology.com/virtualmuseumofhistory/hallofwomen/MARIANANDERSON on Marian Anderson - Misplaced Pages, the 💕 -
			:Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. ] (]) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			This was closed with the comment "Withdrawn by OP as explanation was deemed suitable. If anyone wants to harangue the multitudes, you may revert my close. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)" but this is incorrect. While the second case was convincingly explained, the ] case was not withdrawn and was a bad block and bad declined unblocked. ] (]) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::or like this
			== Request for closure review ==
	::::http:// virtualology.com/apbaronstow/ on http://en.wikipedia.org/Baron_Stow
			I would be grateful for a review of the decision to close the discussion at ] in favour of merging the article ] into ]".
	::::These references need to be be cited properly
			The proposal to merge was raised by {{u|Voorts}} on 30 May 2024, the day after the article was created, at which point the article looked like . Subsequently, there were three responses, two (including myself) against merging and one for merging (not including Voorts' "vote" as nominator). The final "vote" was cast on 3 June, at which point the article looked like . The discussion was subsequently dormant for a few months. On 1 October 2024, {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} . On 27 October 2024, {{u|Compassionate727}} performed a non-admin closure on the proposal to merge in favour of merging, at which point the article looked like .
	::::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.
			I subsequently with Compassionate727 who declined to revise their decision (entirely within their rights).
	::::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.
			I am therefore bringing this to the noticeboard to respectfully request a review of the decision to close in favour of merging. The main points I would flag are:
	::::4. As for putting the wrong person in the reference, I will be sure to double check the names in the future.
			* I think the verdict that there was a "rough consensus to merge" is questionable.
	::::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
			* The proposal to merge, and subsequent discussion, date from immediately after the article's creation and while the article was in the process of being expanded and improved. The latest vote for merging is from 31 May 2024, and the article has been significantly expanded since then. My view would be that, in light of the changes made to the article since 31 May, it would be reasonable to revisit the matter to consider if any of the arguments in favour of merging have been satisfactorily addressed. In effect, the decision to merge does not give weight to any improvements to the article since May 2024.
			* On a practical level, it is unclear how the article could realistically be merged into You Like It Darker without running into ] or purging the vast majority of content. The article has not been merged over two months following the closure.
			If the settled view of the community is to merge the articles on the basis of the discussion in May-June then I will of course accept that, but on this occasion I would respectfully ask that some more consideration be given as to the best course of action. Thank you. ] (]) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Overturn and reopen''' Not a single comment was made after the request was posted to ], and, excluding the nom's !vote, there is one proponent of the merge, who cited a concern that appears to have been addressed. There should be further discussion here. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::From ]:
			:'''Endorse''': The sources added after the merge proposal opened are all about the book. The notability of the book cannot be inherited by the short story. Until there are several independent, reliable sources that establish the story is notable, this should be merged. The due weight issue can be resolved by cutting out the extensive plot summary and summarizing the reviews within the broader context of the book itself. Why not work on getting the book article completed instead of myopically focusing on one short story? ] (]/]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::''"Then, again - I'm curious what your figures for "relevance" are here:"''
			:'''Overturn and Reopen'''. There's no consensus to do ''anything'' there, let alone merge. ] 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::*"''</nowiki>"''
			*Just commenting, because I didn't receive the expected notification, that I am aware of this discussion. I may respond in substance later. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::*''""''
			**Okay, I had to take some time to remind myself of why I handled this how I did. Basically, because it was proposed for merging because of notability concerns rather than anything in ], I treated this discussion as an AfD in another venue. The way AfD works, in practice, is that the subject is presumed to not be notable until it is demonstrated that it is—which, if the subject is indeed notable, is rarely difficult to do. As multiple participants observed, no evidence was provided at any point in the discussion that this short story meets the ]; indeed, opponents of the merge didn't even bother trying to argue that it does. Instead, they tried to fall back on ], but again, they failed to provide any evidence that King's corpus is a {{tq|common subject of academic study}}, and {{u|Οἶδα}} provided a reasonable argument that it probably isn't. The notability of the story not being demonstrated, I found a consensus to not retain the article, which in this case meant merging.{{Pb}}I would find it idiosyncratic for the result to be overturned to no consensus because of the discussion's low participation, which is entirely characteristic of merge discussions. I would find it vexing if my closure was merely vacated and the discussion reopened, as participants here are currently suggesting, because unless ''they'' want to join the discussion, doing so is quite unlikely to actually garner additional participation and will instead merely stall the consensus-building process. In any case, with notability still not being demonstrated, I'm guessing that a "no consensus" outcome will merely cause the conversation to move to AfD, where I expect the article will be deleted unless new evidence emerges. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::''"] (]) 18:34, 9 December 2007 :::::(UTC)"''<sup></sup>
			*'''Overturn and reopen''' per my original reasoning as mentioned above (I didn't get a ping though) and strongly echoing Black Kite. ] (]) 22:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Overturn'''. I don't believe this discussion has meaningful consensus, and as someone who works on literary topics it is a somewhat frustrating discussion to read. First, the story is notable: Stephen King is a literary giant, and therefore his publications meet ] No. 5. Second, the notability is somewhat secondary; the real question for a merge discussion is whether a standalone page is appropriate. We routinely treat notable topics as part of a larger coherent article because that serves a reader better, and sometimes because that is how the sources treat them. The questions that needed to be answered are whether there is sufficient content to justify a standalone page, and whether a merger would create due weight issues. At a brief glance the answers to those questions are "yes" and "yes", but more to the point, those questions weren't examined in any depth. Honestly, I think this is a borderline case where either outcome could be made work with good editing (the collection article could be expanded, such that a merger wouldn't swamp it). Finally, the discussion had four participants, evenly split on the question. Absent a reason to completely discard one set of opinions - and I don't see such a reason - I don't see grounds to close this with consensus in favor of anything. ] (]) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Request removing creation block at ] ==
	::::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.
			{{atop|result=Protection removed from ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::::{{unsigned2|06:10, 10 December 2007|Pputter}}
			] was repeatedly recreated in 2008 after a deletion for Copyvio back in 2007 and was thus Creation Blocked. On ] after some discussion, we believe we have found sufficient references for creation of the page. On contacting an available administrator, they indicated that I should ask here. thank you.] (]) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small>
			:If an editor wants to create this in good faith then I don't see why not, but I must say that I find this whole "Greek letter" thing extremely childish, so I certainly won't be editing the article. ] (]) 21:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The article was ]ed for lack of a ] under ], not for persistent copyright violation. I don't think a Senate resolution and a newspaper article from 1942{{snd}}which are the only two sources cited in the WikiProject discussion{{snd}}meet ]. I personally won't un-SALT the page until I'm satisfied that this is actually notable. ] (]/]) 21:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Hello, ],
			:I'm not sure why you were advised to come here to ], the proper place to request a change in protection for a page title is ]. Secondly, you're best bet is to write a draft article and submit it to ], if it is approved, then protection can be lowered so the article can be moved from Draft space to main space. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping|Naraht}} I've undeleted it for you; salting wasn't intended to prevent a soild editor from creating an article in 2024; it was being recreated in 2007-2008 in unuseful ways. Because of Voorts' concern, Liz's idea of drafting it in draft space first, until you have all your ducks in a row, is a good one. But you've been here forever, I defer to however you want to handle it. --] (]) 23:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yes, I didn't notice that Naraht had been an editor since 2005. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to ] ==
	Oh Yes as far as academic references you slighted above, well Mr. Klos' are meager but here they are:
			REASON: It's directly mentioned in the article thus it's already immediately obvious. And because it uses characters outside the BMP, I can't create it myself so... ] (I ], ]) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			:] already exists. Not sure about the dot in front of it? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::From the article. <blockquote>There are no separate uppercase or lowercase letters as in the Latin script; instead of using capitalization to mark proper nouns, a "namer-dot" (·) is placed before a name. Sentences are typically not started with a namer-dot, unless it is otherwise called for. All other punctuation and word spacing is similar to conventional orthography.</blockquote> Seems appropriate for the forced capitalization of the wikipedia article, but I could see that going either way.] (]) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*]? Sure. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Done. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Thanks ] (I ], ]) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Call for decisive admins to clear backlog ==
	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.
			So, there have been persistent backlogs at ]. I had not worked the area in a while, and I assumed it was simply so understaffed that appeals weren't even being looked at. What I have found instead is that, in quite a number of cases, between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the ''exact'' edits they would make. I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock.
	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.
			Now, I don't agree with that approach as most of these appeals are from fairly new users and I was under the impression we were supposed to assume good faith and give second chances, not act like every unblock appeal was the trial of the century, and there is some terrible risk to just ]. However, the real problem here is that I'm seeing these long discussions, but then the reviewing admins don't ''do anything''. Even after asking the user to jump through all these hoops, they do not even get the courtesy of closure to their case.
	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>
			So, I'm asking, pleading really, for admins who find themselves able to come to a conclusion and act on it to pleas help with this backlog.
	: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)
			I'm not looking to have a long discussion here about it, I'm asking for help dealing with it as it seems fairly out-of-control. ] ] 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::], 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'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with that characterization more. In some cases (and you didn't name me but you clearly include me) I have already reviewed and I'm not supposed to review again. I also have other things to do. And sometimes I forget. Nothing nefarious like its being made out to be. And yes, I don't want people to post here saying "that 331dot's wasting our time unblocking all these people who shouldn't be!". Is that so unreasonable?
	:::*]
			:AGF does not mean accepting things on blind faith. ]; ]. ] (]) 22:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::*]
			::I don't believe I said or implied it was anything nefarious, as I don't think it is. I don't agree with the prolonged quizzes and goalpost moving I'm seeing in some of these requests, that's true, and sure, some of that is you but it isn't just you. It seems to me that we have an issue here exactly because too few admins are working in this area, and that group has developed their own version of "how it's supposed to work" that I do not think jives with what the community expects. ] ] 01:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::*]
			:::What the community expects, or what you expect?
	:::*]
			:::I'm not being disagreeable here. You and I have been around a long time and I think it's safe to say we've seen a lot of blocks and unblocks happen, and many discussed here and elsewhere. In my estimation, there's no consensus on how unblocking should be treated, because it's relying on admin discretion on a case by case basis. And questioning the blocked user to get more info - rather than ignoring and leaving them blocked! - was always seen as more merciful and giving the opportunity for AGF. We always have said that we as a community believe in the opportunity for redemption here. But not at the expense of disruption to the project. (See also ], especially the first line.)
	:::*]
			:::All that said, concerning one of your comments, if an admin is going on vacation, a wiki-break, or whatever, then out of courtesy, they should note here that they are dropping certain tasks (like an unblock review) so that there is less confusion, and someone else can pick up the ball. - <b>]</b> 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::*]
	:::I also left notes on the talk pages of the editors who had been most involved in discussion of these links.
			:I do second the request for help, though. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 22:32, 18 December 2024 (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.
			:I have some hypotheticals in response to your implication that current admins staffing RFU are acting unreasonably:
			:* {{tq| between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the ''exact'' edits they would make.}} SpamEditor is blocked for spamming links to their small business. They request an unblock, with the statement: "Sorry I just want to edit Misplaced Pages productively, I won't do it again". AdminUnblocker uses the {{tl|2nd chance}} template. SE complies with that template after two weeks, and submits an article edit. AU and a couple of other admins comment on it. BlockingAdmin is consulted per the blocking policy, but takes a week or so to respond because they're on vacation.
			:* {{tq|I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock.}} MeanEditor is blocked for ] based on three or four diffs and without any preceding discussion or AN/I report. ME requests to be unblocked, stating that they won't make personal attacks ever again, and sincerely apologizing for their conduct. While reviewing the unblock request, AU looks at ME's edit history and sees that ME had also regularly added unsourced information to articles. AU asks ME to explain what ] requires and to provide an example of a reliable source. After a back and forth, ME passes the exercise and is unblocked. Now, assume AU hadn't asked those questions and instead unblockes ME based solely on the sincerity of the apology. The next day, ME inserts unsourced information into several articles, continues after a final warning, and is indef'd.
			: ] (]/]) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I also want it on the record that I strongly disagree with Beeblebrox's removal of {{noping|KathiWarriorDarbar}}'s block, a block that three admins (including me) didn't think should be removed. ] (]) 23:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::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.
			* We can also add to the record that Beeblerox unblocked Jisshu, who had been blocked for copyright violations. In the meantime, Jisshu had been contributing to Simple Misplaced Pages... where many of their edits consisted of close paraphrasing. As documented ], the editor immediately returned to adding copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages and has been reblocked. Although I'm all for clearing the backlog, it's also important not to be sloppy about it. ] (]) 01:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::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)
			*:I second this. I want to unblock people, but I also don't want to see them back, both for them(so they become good contributors) and for us(so we don't waste more time dealing with repeat appellants). Yes, blocks are cheap, and often ] is good, but not always. I also am aware of no policy that says only the stated/logged issue can be dealt with and nothing else, especially in the face of clear evidence. ] (]) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Your "clear evidence" is too often a brand new editor who was blocked way too harshly instead of being warned, and then gets their unblock declined because they didn't fully understand the block (how could they?). The previous discussion included plenty of recent such episodes where you were involved (together with others). I don't get why blatant vandalism gets 4 warnings, but people adding helpful links to informative but unacceptable sources (their own blog, a commercial site they don't seem to be affiliated with) get an indef block without a warning and then a very unhelpful treatment when they ask for an unblock. ] (]) 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I'm trying to balance being helpful with avoiding the user telling me what I want to hear(giving them the information I'm looking for). I provide help when specifically asked. ] (]) 10:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{tq|add to the record}}? What record? The record of giving people a second chance and then being disappointed but not particularly surprised when they squander it? As far as I'm concerned that's how this is supposed to work. Simple unblock requests from newer users making a reasonable request for a second chance don't require a committee to deal with them. ] ] 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::No, El Beeblerino. It is a follow-up on 331dot's wording of {{tpq|I also want it on the record}}, which ] (I believe that it is likely you knew that question was false when you replied, but on the off chance you didn't.) --] (]) 04:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::But this was an editor who hadn't ''learned'' they were about to squander it! Did you think they were lying when they said they understood what paraphrasing was? If yes, why unblock? If no, why set them up for failure like this? -- ] (]) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::You asked them several questions and they gave at least semi-reasonable replies. They admitted they had copied material word-for word and said they would paraphrase in the future. You declined to action the report after all that, saying that someone needed to check their edits on another project for copyvios.
			*:::<br>
			*:::I read the appeal and the subsequent conversation and came to my own decision, which was different from yours. That's how it goes. It isn't personal, I just did not see it exactly the same as you did, and since you explicitly said you would not decline the request I took the action I thought was appropriate. I did not and do not see this as overriding your decision, but equally I do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do.
			*:::<br>
			*:::It turns out they didn't understand any of it and actually acted even more clueless than they had before the block, and were swiftly reblocked for it. I've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself, and added my own comments about how their behavior post-unblock was terrible and clueless. All we can do is try and educate newbies, which you tried to do. Some people are just unteachable, that's just the sad truth of it and I feel at this point that this is a ] case.
			*:::<br>
			*:::I think we have similar basic goals in mind, we want newbies to be given a chance, but your approach with the quizzes is simply not how I approach things. That's ok, we ''need'' diversity of opinion and approach in these areas.
			*:::<br>
			*:::As far as I am concerned, this specific matter has already been resolved. ] ] 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Honestly I suspect that exactly this reaction is what's actually going on here: admins are reluctant to unblock people for the same reason governors are unwilling to pardon people, because if they let someone edit and they do something bad again people will rightly-or-wrongly now blame the unblocking admin for it. ] (]) 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::What I do is add an event to my calendar so that I get a daily email reminder to check the unblocked person's contribs. I typically have several of these happening. This system gives the opportunity to give timely feedback if they are still not getting it, or to reblock if necessary. ] (]) 12:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::@] (and others): may I take a moment to recommend ] which lets you create reminders onwiki which then appear on your watchlist. You can even "snooze" them once they appear. Best, ] (]) 15:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Sob story''' About a year ago, I decisively tackled ]. It was exhausting. It was disheartening. I felt constant fear of making a mistake. That fear got worse when many of those I unblocked resumed disruption and were reblocked. The sense of achievement from the few successful unblocks was not enough to overcome the sense of stupidity I felt from the reblocks. I gave up. {{ping|Beeblebrox}}, you have renewed my willingness to make decisive (if high-risk) unblocks. {{ping|Tamzin|JBW|Asilvering}}, are you with me?] (]) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::<small>That's weird, because recently this page has made me want to hand back my barely-unwrapped mop. --] (]) 14:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			:::{{yo|DoubleGrazing}} Don't get discouraged. Remember it is a learning and relearning experience. Be open to feedback and adjust your focus and methodology as needed. ] (]) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm in a similar position. I waded in to ] some time ago to try and help clear the backlog and pretty much every case I looked at was seemingly already being reviewed by other admins. Despite the volume of requests in there, I found very few "virgin" requests where I could pop in and make a quick decision without overriding anyone but the blocking admin.
			::I agree with @], we need to stop the protracted discussions. If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. If you're not sure, err on the side of assuming good faith; their edits can always be rolled back and they can be reblocked if necessary.
			::Above all, let's not beat each other up if we make a mistake on that front. Assuming good faith is one of our central pillars and nobody should be lambasted or made to feel stupid for doing so. ]] 14:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along.}} Why is this better than having a dialogue, answering questions, and educating the editor? ] (]/]) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Two reasons. First, with limited admin resources, that time-consuming approach just isn't feasible if we want to actually get the backlog down. Second, as @] has pointed out, it often turns the unblock request into something closer to what ] has become, and none of us want that. ]] 11:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Well, outside of the context of this thread, my answer is, of course, "you know my philosophy, you know I'm with you". I believe very firmly in treating people with kindness, collegiality, and above all, patience. That's precisely ''why'' I have been engaging at some length with blocked editors. Given the context of this thread, it appears that "decisive" means "with minimal discussion or delay". I've already watched one editor I had been interacting with get unblocked without any verification that they understood what was expected of them; that editor was ''so'' excited to be unblocked, immediately connected with another interested editor in the topic area... and was reblocked. I don't think that was kind, collegial, or patient, and I don't think it was just, either. If that's what being decisive is, I don't want any part of it; it's heartbreaking. -- ] (]) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{non-admin comment}} I'll gladly endorse second-chance unblocks that lead to disruption, if it means we can avoid reaffirmed blocks that prevent good faith contributors from joining Misplaced Pages. It's the difference between short-term disruption on a few pages versus potentially years of contributions lost. I don't object to talking to the blocked editor first to make sure the concerns are addressed, but the admin should go in looking for reasons to unblock rather than the other way around. ] (]) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{to|Thebiguglyalien}} Wait. You endorse unblocks that ''lead'' to disruption? ] (]) 16:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, I'm simply describing ]. ] (]) 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::😵 ] (]) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::You 😵, @], but when it comes to low-stakes obvious vandalism and so on, I think this is fine, so long as the unblocking editor keeps an eye on the next few contributions to see whether the rope got used in the, uh, traditional manner. People who replace the content of an article with "pee pee poo poo" know what they're doing. I had gotten the impression from my early lurking at unblocks that this was unacceptable, sighed about the death of ], and resolved to bring it up once I had more unblocks experience. Since then I've only seen fit to apply it in cases where the block is quite old already, so it didn't seem like much of an experiment (and indeed, no noose-takers), and one other case with other mitigating concerns (I was immediately snarked at for this one, but so far, still no noose, just a slow-moving cat-and-mouse game I don't know what to make of yet). -- ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::ROPE itself says that sometimes these discussions are appropriate: {{tq|Sometimes those prolonged unblock discussions produce real results in educating the blocked user about why they were blocked and helping them to edit productively in the future.}} I've made ROPE unblocks, but I've also made unblocks where I've had a discussion with the editor. By ROPE's own terms, whether to do one or the other is within an admin's discretion. ] (]/]) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Indeed. I've done both as well. ] (]) 16:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::And I'm fine with that, as long as we're more forgiving to admins who make bad unblocks as opposed to admins who make bad blocks or are too quick to dismiss unblock requests by editors who don't know "the game". ] (]) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::If Beeb had asked the admins involved instead of bringing this to AN, I think you would have seen answers like @]'s. This idea that people staffing CAT:UNBLOCK are looking not to unblock people appears to be coming from WPO editors assuming bad faith. ] (]/]) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::That thread in particular has some extremely funny things to say about me. Recommended reading, really. -- ] (]) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I'm always amused when someone implies that I am under mind control from WPO. I assure you that I am quite capable of making my own decisions. Where the initial alarm bell went off is not relevant, I, myself, looking much further than the specific cases mentioned there, found what I believe to be a serious systemic problem in the unblocking process. I don't believe I said anywhere that the regulars in this area are {{tq|looking not to unblock people}}, I said too many requests were being discussed at length and then never closed, whether as an accept or a decline. That's not acceptable. What we need here, as I very clearly stated when opening this thread, is more admins working this area and more willingness to just make an up-or-down call on unblock requests. ] ] 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::"looking not to unblock people" etc. was in response to alien's point, not yours. ] (]/]) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::All this "that part of my comment was directed elsewhere even though the other part was clearly directed at you" is getting farcical. If anyone wants to '''help out with the damn backlog''' please jump right in. That was the point here. It's down to fifty-eight items right now, which is bad but not as bad as it has been some days. ] ] 00:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Beebs, you could save us all some time if you'd just tell us which users . I'm a little exasperated myself lately at some blocks that have been ignoring the ] especially with respect to new users, and I'd be happy to look into some but I'm not going to waste my time sorting through the drivel over there on the off chance that there might be a helpful comment. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:How nice to see locations of the targeted admins being brought up on the first page. ] (]) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:{{yo|Ivanvector}}I have responded to one or two that were discussed over there, but I've mostly just been scrolling through the list and just picking them at random. I've found plenty that just needed someone to take action that way.
			*:I admit I shy away from the CU blocks. I know those were moved back to largely being reviewed by the community but I'm not actually sure how we're supposed to actually do that. ] ] 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::And also starting threads here specifically about the admins and their specific actions that are being discussed there by people who are banned here. I'm not going to harp on this because I happen to be roughly on the same page, but do mind ] and ]. Regarding checkuser: I'm not sure what you mean by "moved back to the community" - all a CU block indicates is that private information is involved in the block decision, and for that reason the community shouldn't be reviewing CU blocks at all. Likewise checkusers shouldn't be flagging blocks for no reason. But if a CU has already reviewed the block, it's supposed to be good to go for regular reviews by admins or the community; I'm trying to be more explicit about that in the blocks that I review, if I don't just close the appeal myself. And like I said below: if you come across an unblock that's sitting idle because it's waiting on a checkuser, try flagging it with {{tl|checkuser needed}} so that the page gets listed in the table at ]. Stuff listed there gets the fastest attention. <small>I know you probably already know all of this, but I'm saying it anyway for everyone's benefit who might not.</small> ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::@] what's been ] has been CU blocks basically being appealable only to arbcom to being able to handled onwiki by any CU in most circumstances (and/or a CU removing the CU part of the bloack because there is no socking going on and letting an admin handle other issues that contributed to a block). Best, ] (]) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::Ah. I hadn't worked this area in a while and I think I was on a break when that change was made, so I kind of missed the finer points. ] ] 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			The unblock log would probably be shorter if some admins weren't so trigger happy. The other discussion here at AN contains quite a few examples of editors who shouldn't have been blocked so swiftly, and in the current unblock queue I see e.g. ], who needed an explanation, not a block. ] (]) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Checkuser blocks''' The blocks that have been waiting the longest for a response are checkuser blocks. I cannot unblock those, so I've not looked closely. Perhaps a checkuser could look at them?] (]) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I processed some from the top of the list that were marked as checkuser blocks - all of the ones I looked at had already been reviewed by a CU. I closed some but I am in meetings for the rest of the day. You might want to take a closer look, and perhaps consider adding a {{tl|checkuser needed}} if they are still waiting. There aren't that many CUs that patrol unblocks, but the template lists the page in a table at ] that we all look at. I think they also get posted to IRC but I'm not on there. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Now seems like a good time to invite comment on ], my radical proposal for restructuring the system. It's already gotten some very helpful feedback from some of the participants in this discussion. Please note, this is '''still in the workshop phase''', so I'm not asking for support/oppose comments at this time. But I welcome any and all comments on its talkpage about how to make the idea better and/or more likely to pass an RfC. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Trigger-happy blocks are for sure another serious issue here, we need to work it from both ends. ] ] 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::I just left a belated note at ]. <br />
			:I have little to offer here, except to say that decisiveness is a virtue only if the decider is right. In itself it is very overrated. I wish that people, especially politicians, would be more honest and say "I don't know" much more often. ] (]) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
			== Self-requested RM relist review ==
	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/.
			{{atop|1=It appears there are no objections. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			I recently relisted ] but I'm not entirely certain if that or closing as not moved was the correct option. There were zero !votes in support of the requested move, and the nominator's argument misrepresented policy, but three of the oppose !votes indicated that they would support renaming the article to something else that accounts for the fact that the article also discusses another bill. Therefore, I relisted the discussion with the following comment:
			{{bq|There is a very clear consensus against the proposed move, but some people have suggested moving to an alternative title that also accounts for the mention of another bill in this article. Further discussion is needed on that aspect of the request.}}
			I've never relisted a discussion for a reason like this before, so I've come here to request review of if my decision was the correct one. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think this is an appropriate relist since additional discussion might lead to consensus on a new title or enough options for a ]. ] (]/]) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== "Early" closes at AfD ==
	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.
			The closing instructions at AfD currently says {{tqq|A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours).}} I have noticed that several discussions each day are being closed early. Most of these are less than 30 minutes early but I have seen up to 2 hours early of their 7 days/168 hours. If articles are being closed as keep, I think that's arguably defensible and relisting early when it's obvious no consensus will be reached definitely makes sense, but I have a harder time with deletions. Truthfully, I don't understand the rush, especially as most (if not all - I've only spot checked this) are being done with XfDCloser which warns you if you're going early - that is these admins are making a conscious to close early. Since we're talking a handful minutes it likely doesn't make a difference in the outcome. But for me the instructions imply closing before 168 hours should be more a IAR situation rather than several discussions each day and multiple admins doing it. I thought I would bring it here for discussion to see if it's just me or if it bothers anyone else. And if it is just me maybe we adjust the instruction (or maybe I'm just making normally out to be a stronger prohibition than it's meant to be). I'm specifically not naming any of the admins or linking to any early closes as I'm not looking to get anyone "in trouble", just trying to see where the community stands, but obviously all of this can be observed by anyone else who wants to go through the day's closes at AfD. Thanks and best, ] (]) 04:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	Mr. Klos just wanted to make his sources available to Wiki users and we wanted them cited properly.
			:Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't ''overly'' matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). ] (]) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{ping|TheSandDoctor}} I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours ''since last relist''. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. ] (]) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, ] (]) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Yes, {{u|TheSandDoctor}}, there's no requirement to wait another ''week'' following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. ]'']''] 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::To be clear the AfDs I'm discussing have not been relisted; they're being closed before 7 total days. Best, ] (]) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{nacmt}} I was actually thinking of raising different modification: currently ] actually indicates discussions should be closed after they have been moved to ] (which is 168 hours + rollover of UTC day), which definitely does not reflect practice. I would agree that pre-168 hour closure should probably only occur in exceptional circumstances, though I can't say I've really been keeping track of them so I wouldn't know if the current rate is above my expectations. ] (] • ]) 12:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I haven't done formal math but based on having looked at this over 10 days of closes I'm guessing it hovers just under 10%. Best, ] (]) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I have been doing some afd closes and I have noticed this as well, probably done it a few times myself, when the result seemed unlikely to change. I usually start doing them less than two hours before midnight UTC though, which is three in the afternoon for me. ] ] 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I don't recall you from the days I've sampled, but art of my thought here is that AfD seems more than adequately staffed at the moment. So what's the rush with any of these? Just let them play out for the full time and any of the many admin who are around can handle it. Best, ] (]) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I just popped in there, all but one from today was already closed. I could be imagining this, but it feels like since I started doing AFD closes again last month, the other regulars have started doing them even earlier. It also seems clear that some of them are watching them days ahead of time, while myself I prefer to come in clean and just read the debate, but that's perhaps just a matter of personal taste. I agree there's no real rush, there's plenty of other backlogs that actually need help. ] ] 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, it tends to be only the kinda gross ones that end up on the /Old list. I've set myself a personal policy to not relist anything that hasn't made it to that page, but I'd also be pretty happy if we all agreed to only close AfDs after they ended up there. -- ] (]) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::If the issue is that ] ({{tq|To process an AFD debate listed on a day page containing debates ] to be closed}}) implies something different than the explicit statement in ] ({{tq|A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)}}), then the two should be reconciled in some way.
			::I don't think that there is an objectively better answer here, but the current practice appears to be closer to the language in ]. Since, as ] notes, {{tq|technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors}}, I think we may want to consider tentatively revising ] pending future discussion. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Except old enough links to ] and only things older than 168 hours appear on that page. So I'm not sure I agree they need reconciling. Best, ] (]) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*As someone who has closed thousands of AFDs, I'll just say that closure times varies a lot over time (I'm talking years) and with different discussion closers. NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early, sometimes a full day or two early. I assume this is because they think a discussion looks like SNOW and they want to get the practice of closing AFDs. I regularly remind them to wait for 7 days to pass.
			:And we have some admins, none of whom are currently closing AFD discussions, who consistently close up to 9 or 10 hours early. In the past, I have often left a user talk page note about these early closures and those notes usually result in changes in their behavior. Then, there is another phenomena at 23:00 UTC, there is often early closures of lingering AFD discussions that are due to end between 23:00-24:00 UTC. In general, I don't get concerned about AFD closures that are within an hour or two of the appropriate closure time but I do post notifications to closers who close AFDs half a day or days early. We have respected admins who are irregular closers who close a discussion as SNOW that doesn't seem like SNOW to me! I'll just say that while this phenomena might be getting attention right now, the situation is much better now that it was months or years ago. I also recommend that any chiding of closers is done as a general and gentle reminder to all admins, not singling out individuals as we always are short of closers and some of our worst early closers simply do not close AFDs any longer. That's my 2 cents as someone who spends a lot of time in this area.
			:I'll also say that while I believe in the 7 day rule, we really get little discussion participation after the first two or three days, when discussions are first posted or right after a discussion has been relisted. We see little last minute activity in deletion discussions. That's my observation. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::That's what I've generally seen as well, although as you know I wasn't regularly doing them for quite a while until recently. I figure when it is the last hour for everything, it's probably ok to close slightly early unless you see a very recent post that makes a new point or points out sources not previously discussed. Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.
			::<br>
			::For the record I appreciate your pointers to me when I started doing them again. The ] is a real game changer, which is probably why closes are being handled so quickly, but you do kinda need to know what you are doing with it.
			::<br>
			::For those that may not know, the XFD closer does alert you when you are closing a discussion early and you have to affirm you are doing so deliberately. ] ] 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{tq|Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.}} I have to register strong disagreement with this statement. It's not my experience that most AFDs are closed hours ahead of time. I think that most closers are very respectful of the 7 day guideline and only close discussions early if it is SNOWING until we get to the 23:00 UTC hour. I think some closers, admins and NACs, have a SNOW bar that is too low (like 4 Keeps or 4 Deletes) but that is a subjective judgment on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			: I disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion. An AfD should be closed when the outcome is clear. A ] close is absolutely fine when the snow has fallen. An early close by a few hours is fine when, aside from outliers making weak arguments, there is overwhelming consensus for specific outcome that cannot realistically change in the course of the normal pattern of an AfD. ] ] 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yeah, this seems like a good problem to have.
			::Regarding, "{{tq|NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early}}", I've closed discussions as clearly keep on the seventh calendar day, but an hour or more before the clock completely runs out, and don't see an issue with something like ] where there is discussion and only keep !votes. I've also had several times where I read through the discussion, wrote up the rationale, and came back a few minutes before the clock ran out only to find the discussion already closed early by another editor. Closing early (at least for me) is to avoid duplicating and wasting effort.
			::A technical solution to make collaboration easier when closing would be appreciated. I have no idea how the XFDcloser gadget works, but I'm imagining some kind of way to flag an AfD discussion not as closed but as "being reviewed" or something like that. ] (]) 02:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::], I wasn't talking about all NACs or anyone specifically. I think it's just a tendency among NACs to be enthusiastic about closing or relisting discussions and so they can take action too soon sometimes. But NACs help out a lot and usually make accurate closures. IF I have issues with any editor, I bring it to their User talk page and they are almost always very responsive to criticism which, to me, is an essential trait on this platform. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::@], gotcha, and I wasn't taking it in a personal way. I realize it can be hard to tell with just text. ] (]) 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Quibbling about a few hours seems to be clearly against the spirit of ]. If an the admin has time to process a batch of AfDs now but not in a couple of hours, it makes sense to do that rather than letting them sit. For many years ] has also implicitly encouraged this but colouring such discussions yellow instead of red. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:The yellow is just for relists, as far as I can tell. An AfD that is about to hit 168 hours is still red. -- ] (]) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::Oh! I've always misunderstood that then. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I'll be the contrarian I guess. I understand ], but by the same token, if someone is fervently defending a '''keep''' of an article, especially if contentious, giving the full 7 days is not a bureaucratic move, but one of respect. People have taken their own time to create such media (articles, images, etc) and we should be respectful of their time and efforts before removing them, especially if done in good faith. One of the biggest problems we have is getting new people involved. There's no quicker way to get someone out than to delete all their work. All that said, yes, a ] keep = ok to close early. The same would apply for a ] no consensus. Some additional, generic clarifying guidelines for both Admins and users would probably go a long way. ] (]) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:] and ]: . Feel free to revert if you believe it is in error. ] (]) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:: I completely agree with and endorse this outcome. I would assert that any ] outcome can be closed once the snow has fallen, and that any discussion for which the outcome cannot reasonably be expected to change is in the same situation. If for example, you have a nomination for deletion that starts out with a handful of delete votes, and is followed by a flood of keep votes with well-reasoned bases in policy and evidence, particularly where the article is improved over the course of the discussion with the addition of sources demonstrating notability, then there is no reason to embarrass the subject any further with a deletion template. ] ] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Why should there be a different standard for deletion versus keeping? ] (]) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			== On replacing crap lead image for Sophia Loren ==
	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:
			{{Archive top|I have indefinitely blocked Light show for this latest knowing violation of their topic ban, as noted in the discussion below. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			As a topic-banned editor, although no one knows why, am I allowed to request that a piece of crap photo of ] be replaced by one worthy of her stature? I assume I can't request it on her talk page. There seem to be over a 100 of her on the commons, 99% of which are better than the one someone stuck on her bio. Try , for starters, which shows her at the peak of her career. An editor a few months ago requested someone "replace that crap crop" of ] on my talk page, which was accomplished.
			Top Awards: Academy Awards: Best Actress: her the first actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language performance.
	On John Penns Birth Date You Said he was born on Mary 17, 1741 is it supposed to be May?
			Honorary Award: (1991) for her contributions to world cinema.
			Golden Globes:
			Cecil B. DeMille Award: (1995) for outstanding contributions to the entertainment world.
			Multiple Golden Globe nominations, winning Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical for The Millionairess.
			Cannes Film Festival: Best Actress: Two Women (1961).
			BAFTA: Best Foreign Actress: Two Women (1962).
			Grammy Award: Best Spoken Word Album for Children: Peter and the Wolf (1981), shared with other performers.
			7 Best Actress Awards, including for Two Women and A Special Day.
			Golden Lion Award for Lifetime Achievement (Venice Film Festival): (1998).
			Presidential Medal of Freedom (USA): (2019), awarded for her cultural contributions.
			Career Overview: Number of Films: Over 90 films over a 70-year career.
			] (]) 07:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			: It's logged . Reason: IDHT+disruptive edits. ] (]) 07:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Given that you've been blocked '''six''' times for breaching the topic ban, I would have thought it would have been clear why it exists by now. Not only that, but ''this'' request is also a violation of the topic ban, which you should have been aware of per ]. ] 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I don't think one is allowed to use the AN board, to request a proxy edit to an area one's t-banned from. ] (]) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:No. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{yo|Light show}} It is concerning that you do not understand the reasons for your TBAN and that you have once again violated it. ] (]) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Archive bottom}}
			== {{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}} ==
	Or
			{{atop|Sulan114 is not eligible to file this petition. --] (]) 23:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	James G. Blaine was a Senator from Maine, not Massachusetts.
			Admin targeted a User in October 2023 by making a redirect of users former usernames ] (]) 23:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:This user is not eligible to start recall, unless the rules have changed. ] (]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	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 .
			::Nor can someone elected to ArbCom in the past year be recalled. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			==Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.==
			{{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Belarus ] 06:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	We did do, however, a source on the page directed to us by one of your administrators.
			Add to wikidata.
	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.
			Add the Romani article for Sweden:
	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.
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Sveko
	--] (]) 16:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
	<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small>
	::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)
			Add the Romani article for Cyprus:
	:::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).
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Chipro ] 06:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.
	:::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)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Bosniya_thai_Hercegovina ] 06:24, 20 December 2024 (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)
			Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.
	:::::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)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana
	=== ''Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography'' 1887-89. ===
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts
	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)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland
	(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))
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois
	: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)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania
	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 ].
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/New_York_(stato) ] 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
	::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)
			*Hi. Thanks for this list of links but this isn't really the place to make content requests. If there's specific ] information in articles on other Wikipedias that could also be in our articles, then you should feel free to add it yourself. If you need help in how to do so, a good place to ask would be at the ]. Re the requests to add material to Wikidata: sorry but that's a separate site, you'd be better off reposting your requests directly at .-- ] (]) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			{{abot}}
			{{ping|The_Bushranger}}, could you take care of (I assume) this person at {{IP|37.21.144.243}} rq? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			== Blatant vandalism ==
	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.
			{{atop|result=Article draftified, not vandalized. Draft creator blocked after personal attacks. Page mover encouraged to use scripts that inform content creators when an article is moved to Draft space (see Draftify or Move to Draft on ]). <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			I created a page ] and put A LOT of work into gathering all information. Within hours, user ] simply deleted it. No warning, no explanation, no reasoning, just deleted everything. This is not the first time this user has arbitrarily deleted or undone my work and you can see on his talk page that other users have experienced the same type of behavior by this user. He just keeps doing it over and over again. It is time for someone to put a stop to this, because this arrogance is completely unacceptable. Please deal with this person and restore the page I created. Thanks. ] (]) 08:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The article wasn't deleted, it was moved to ] with the comment "''not ready for mainspace, zero sources and zero indications of notability, there needs to be more than just a list of head to head matches to warrant an article, it fails ] and ]''". --] (]) 08:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	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 />
	<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small>
			::Then why doesn't this user communicate that clearly to a user like me? Is it that difficult to do that? He can take the time to move the article and delete links to the article I have created instead of taking the time to say, 'Hey, good article, but you need to add source'? The source is the official website of the ] and I collected all data from there. Notability? Styrian derby has been listed here ] for quite a while but over the last twenty years no-one had ever bothered to do the work and make an article about it. There are only four real derbies in that country and I created a page about the second most important one (apart from ]). Seriously, it is this kind of behavior by arrogant administrators that has put many people off when it comes to editing Misplaced Pages. Instead of valuing INFORMATION and thanking users for the work they put in, Misplaced Pages chooses to value admins of whom quite a few are on high horses. This is exactly why I stopped donating to Misplaced Pages years ago. ] (]) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	: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)
			:::You have been on WP since 2007. Isn't it obvious that ] has no hint of ] as currently written (and can a football rivalry have "Honours"?)? If you want this article to have a chance to "stick" in mainspace, try following the advice at ]. Find some great independent sources on this football rivalry, summarize them and cite them. ''That'' is ''the work'' on ''this'' website. You can ask for input at related wikiprojects, maybe someone will be interested in the subject. Moving that article to draft is not ], not even close. And fwiw, Snowflake91 is not an admin. ] (]) 09:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic other than to add links.</small>
			::: doesn't help much, but consider looking at , you might find something WP-good there. ] (]) 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I simply used the template used here ]. How does that page differ from the one I created? It only has a longer intro, that's it. The rest is all the same - data/info (which is what people want to see when checking about derbies). The original article (which I had also made a link to) doesn't provide more info either, but no-one decided to move or delete that one. There are many references to this derby online and people who search for the article will not be searching for info on 'what it is' (even though that is also clearly described in the first sentence of the article), they will be searching for a comprehensive overview of results, which I have provided. ] (]) 10:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{tqq|There are many references to this derby online}} Then it should be easy for you to add them to the draft article. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::And focus on the ones that show ]. ] (]) 09:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			*Draftifying articles that are unsourced and are mistakenly put into main space isn't vandalism. But ], there are multiple scripts available that many editors and page patrollers use to draftify articles and they all make a point of posting a notification on the User talk page of the article creator. Please do this in the future if you move an article across namespaces. Install the script and it will post the notice for you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I truly find this need to write a longer intro of what the derby is completely unnecessary. Go to ] and you will see the Styrian derbi mentioned in the fourth paragraph from the top. Go to ] page. What does it say under 'History and rivalry culture' and under 'Fans'? Nothing. It says one team is supported by their fans and the other team is supported by the other fans. Duh! Who would've thought? And the external links (notes #8, #9, and #10) in the 'Fans' section are ALL about violence, nothing more. My beef is with these double standards. One article in Misplaced Pages (such as ]) can stand the way it is, but an almost identical article about a separate rivalry is put under such scrutiny and shelved (draftified)? Utterly ridiculous. If the article I created doesn't meet the necessary standards, then neither does ], plain and simple. ] (]) 11:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: Your article had precisely '''zero''' sources. It is ''never'' going to survive in mainspace without them because ] is a policy. As for ] - well, ] is a thing, but that article ''does'' have sources. ] 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: ], I mean feel free to nominate ] for deletion if you want. Maybe check out ] or ] instead (which you clearly still don't understand what the problem with your entry is), the other article has an in-depth coverage from the national television station, like , and this alone would probably meet WP:GNG. Meanwhile, your article consists of 1 very short sentence in the lead section and a list of head-to-head matches, and 0 sources...close enough I guess? ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: All the data I got is from this source . Is it sufficient if I add this reference/link to the article for the article to be deemed Misplaced Pages-worthy? ] (]) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Check ] again. The page you just linked doesn't even ''mention'' "Štajerski derbi" afaict. ] (]) 11:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Again, utterly absurd. It is the OFFICIAL list of all matches between the two teams as provided by the ]. The page ] which (under 'Matches') has links to match reports is using that same website as source. If that is sufficient for the page ] even though the Football Association of Slovenia website doesn't mention the name 'Eternal derby' anywhere, then why doesn't the same apply to 'Styrian derby'? This makes zero sense. And the solution is not to delete both pages, the solution is to allow both to stand as they are. This is a clear case of Administration > Information. Red tape. Unnecessary. ] (]) 12:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: No, it's called Misplaced Pages policy. No sources = no article. A source that just lists match results is not going to be able to source an article about a derby match, because it needs more than just a simple list of statistics. The Eternal Derby article, as already mentioned, has plenty of other sources. Is that one a great article? Perhaps not. Does it meet Misplaced Pages policy? Yes, it does. ] 12:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::: This probably belongs to the talk page of the draft, but your info in this article is also fully wrong - for example, you claim that the first match between the two teams was played in 1991 (after Slovenia's independence), but you do realise that both clubs have played each other in Yugoslav football between 1961 and 1991 as well, right? The first match was almost cetrainly played during the ] season, as you can see that both teams played in that league at the time (and finished in 1st and 2nd place)...so this is also obvious ] issue. ] (]) 12:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::: One incorrect info is enough to mark the whole article as 'fully wrong'? That's simply a technicality that can be solved by noting that the date refers to the first match ever played in PrvaLiga, not the first match ever in history. Like I've said before, you are a control freak who stalks anyone who dares edit any Misplaced Pages article to do with your country and you see all 'outsiders' as somehow 'challenging your authority'. During the last week, you have come to my user page uninvited, while I was creating this page, saw that I was creating it, then removed something from the article I was creating (on my user page!) without even bothering to post why you removed that (you could clearly see it was 'work in progress') but never bothered to instruct that such an article may not be up to standards. You let me complete the work, then once I posted it live, you moved it to drafts. Pathetic. You're a stalker, period, and anyone who has ever made edits to articles related to your country knows this to be a fact. You follow my contributions page and come and 'edit' after my edits even on pages that have nothing to do with your country. Those 'edits' of yours are unnecessary and you know it. Again, I will repeat myself - you are a stalker. It's also pathetic that Misplaced Pages admins allow you to get away with what you do. Honestly, I no longer care. I thought this would be a good addition to Misplaced Pages, an article no-one bothered doing for over 20 years, including you, but you clearly want to assert your dominance. So, have it your way. But it's because of overbearing people like you that Misplaced Pages suffers, trust me on that. ] (]) 13:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::: Bruh...firstly, I'm not "stalking" you, I simply have (almost) all Slovenian football-related articles on my watchlist so that's why they were edited after I "stalked" you; secondly, I removed inter-language wiki links at the bottom of your user page (which were abolished like a decade ago by the way, now you need to use Wikidata for that), because Slovenian article ] was literally connected and linked to your user page because of that, and thirdly, maybe use a sandbox (]) for working on articles, and not your user page in the first place. And I thought that you would add sources and write at least some useful prose from that "work in progress" article, but then you just published it with no sources and head-to-head matches only and nothing else. ] (]) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::I've temporarily blocked NoWikiNoLife for the above personal attacks. I don't see any other admin action needed here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST ==
	::To the contrary, campaign-spamming of these domains were a concern in March 2007
			{{atop|1=As 184* points out, this is (a) apparently sourced and (b) a content dispute. ] is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	::*]
			It seems that everyone is ] in upcoming Malayalam films. Certain editors, mostly IPs, are unnecessarily adding the term to almost every article about Malayalam films, especially upcoming films. Either they don’t understand what an ensemble cast actually means, or they just think it looks pretty. This violates ]. I've noticed this trend for several months now. Please keep an eye on articles about upcoming Malayalam films. Relevant entries can be found in ], ], and ]. ] (]) 09:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
			:Can you link a specific article this happened on, and which IP performed the edit? ] (]) 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			::This doesn't seem to be an issue for AN to deal with and I don't see the CRYSTAL issue mentioned by the IP user. Regardless here is a breakdown of the Malayalam category to answer the question: ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ] (At least, I believe this one refers to an ensemble cast); ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ] Mostly different editors. --] (]) 07:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	: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)
			::: (106.196.26.252), (Arjusreenivas), (Arjusreenivas), (Killeri Achu), (SRAppu), (Mims Mentor), (2402:8100:3912:3e18:a17a:4a77:e0c2:5773). Even released Malayalam films are retrospectively changed, example: (CIDALEBRA20001).--] (]) 08:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::As per WP:CRYSTAL, ''Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Misplaced Pages does not predict the future''. These editors add speculative labels for unreleased films, which definitely constitute WP:CRYSTAL. Where are the ] for "ensemble cast"? --] (]) 09:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Just spot-checking here, the use of {{tq|ensemble cast}} in ] is directly supported by a reference in the article {{tq|In addition to Vijayaraghavan, the film boasts a talented ensemble cast}}. Given ] I could still see why some might be uncomfortable with that. However, as several users have added this descriptor, and it can at least in some cases be supported directly by reference, this would seem to fall within the realm of content issue and is probably best discussed at ]. There is also nothing preventing anyone from simply boldly removing the descriptor with an explanation from any article where it is thought inappropriate and subsequently discussing on a case-by-case basis if any reverts take place. ] (]) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Mass rollbacking my bot ==
	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).
			{{atop|result=Bot rollback successful. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Hi. I was running a task using ], which failed when it tripped a private edit filter. Could an admin do a mass rollback of its edits so far, while I wait for a response at ]? Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 09:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Do you want the two pages it created deleted? ] (]) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yeah, that too. Sorry for the inconvenience. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::{{done}}! ] (]) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Question about ] ==
	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)
			{{atop|1=Asked and answered. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Would ] and ] be covered under ] and ]? The source on ] notes Urartu has a {{tq|significant role in Armenian nationalism}}.
			The reason I'm asking is the recently created ], which had very problematic sources such as racial sources from from 1957 . These type of sources are now removed, but see the ]. ] (]) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			:In my opinion yes, they would: the combination of that "significant role" and the scope of both sets of sanctions being "broadly construed" is sufficient to include them. ]] 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			::Thanks. Have verified that this is an Armenian nationalistic claim: {{tq|Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism}} .
			::I'll add the relevant templates in ] and ]. And will remove this comment by non extended confirmed editor. ] (]) 14:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== ] ==
	::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:
			{{Archive top|This discussion has been closed as '''keep''' per ]. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)|Done}}
	::*Edit counts for each of your accounts ''that we've identified so far:''
			Someone please close this already as "keep", or "no consensus". Thanks. ] (]) 02:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::**]:
			:I am involved, but I believe that any outcome other than "keep" would be highly controversial. ] (]) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::**]:
			:Isn't it too early? -- ] (]) 03:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::**]:
			{{Archive bottom}}
	::**]:
	::**]:
	::**]:
	::**]:
	::**]:
	::**]:
	::**]:
	::**]:
	::**]:
	::*'''Total edits made by PPutter's accounts: 1218 edits'''
			==Small technical question==
	::*Edits made to Klos-related article by Pputter's accounts:
			I was looking for a discussion at ANEW that I knew had happen (under "User: Policynerd3212 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Protection raised to EC)") as I had a link to the discussion. But when I searched the archives, this discussion didn't show up. So, I went to the archive page and it seems, somehow, between two edits, half the page disappeared even though that content deletion isn't visible in the edit.
	::**Edits made to ]: 143
	::**Edits made to ]: 22
			In , you can easily see the discussion with Policy Nerd, it's the 31st discussion on the page that contains 35 discussions. But in by the archive bot, there are now only 15 discussions on the page, not 35 even though the edit doesn't show the content being removed. So, where did those 20 discussions go? Has this deletion of content from noticeboard archives been a regular thing?
	::**Edits made to ]: 10
	::*'''Net edits to Klos-related articles: 175'''
			Anyone have a clue what happened here and why the removal of content would not be visible in this edit? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::*'''Net edits to other articles: 1075''' (all related to link additions that I've seen so far)
			: (Non-admin comment) the issue might be to do with the error message in this section:
	::These do not include promotional your edits to other Wikipedias.<br />
			::::: <blockquote>User:49.206.131.126 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)</blockquote>
	::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
			::::: <blockquote>03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168561 by Adakiko (talk) The tile "Father of the nation" is sometimes used for Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in India but Part III, Article 18 of the Indian Constitution prohibits conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State.Cite error: A (see the help page). Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>
			::::: <blockquote>Blocked – for a period of 1 month This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>
			::::: <blockquote>References</blockquote>
			::::: <blockquote>User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)</blockquote>
			: ] (]) 05:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::So, you're saying that the content is still there, it's just been hidden for years because of the absence of a closing tag by the archiving bot? I wonder if this has happened on other archive pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::It's still not clear to me how to fix this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::: Someone has fixed it (I wasn't willing to try it myself as it was well above my pay grade...) the only way I can think of for finding other cases of this would be searching other pages for the same error message but for all I know this could throw up thousands of false positives. ] (]) 06:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Same problem at ] , 25 sections but only a few are showing up. - ] (]) 07:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Fixed now (thanks Daveosaurus). - ] (]) 07:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::: You fixed the rest while I was looking for the other missing ref tag... there were at least two missing this time.
			:::: For future reference (until someone comes up with an official techie explanation)... what was missing was a <code><nowiki></ref></nowiki></code> tag which meant massive chunks of content didn't show up. All that was needed for the fixes was to find out where the missing tag belonged and add it. ] (]) 07:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*Well, thanks to whomever fixed this problem on this one archive page. It would be great if we could get a bot to scan for missing ref tags on archive pages. I know as an admin, I search admin noticeboards archives all of the time for previous reports and if even 10% of them are hidden because the archiving bot is cutting off tags when it reposts content, that could impact the work that we do. I know that this is a longterm issue to fix but we don't know how extensive it is. Maybe I'll put in a request on the Bot Noticeboard. But I appreciate editors who had some creative solutions here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			==Edit war with User:Mellk vs User:Rnd90==
	Understood, but once again the edits were on the what I discussed earlier all the A’s
			{{atop|Matter handled. ] (]) 14:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			User Mellk has been repeatedly removing well-sourced information from the ] article. The removed content includes cited sources indicating possible violations of international laws by Mikhail Prokhorov. It appears that User Mellk may be attempting to conceal this information by removing it from the article.
			Proposed Action:
	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
			I respectfully request that an uninvolved editor or administrator review this matter. Please assess the reliability of the cited sources and help ensure that properly sourced content remains in compliance with Misplaced Pages’s policies. If the user’s actions are found to be disruptive or noncompliant with policy, I ask for administrative intervention to prevent further edit warring. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Aar-Ada Ada-Ale Alg-Amh Amh-App App-Ash Ash-Azp
	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
			:{{user|Rnd90}} was edit warring attempting to restore edit they made. I originally removed this writing in the edit summary that it does not belong in the first sentence. We also have IPs appearing to restore the edit as well. This looks like a pretty clear ]. ] (]) 13:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Dubai chocolate ==
	And the B’s to Barbour, John Merrett stopped here:
			{{atop
			| result = I don't think the IPs are related to @]. This is otherwise a content dispute. Please discuss this on article talk and seek ] as needed. ] (]/]) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			So I created the article ] this week, and it got some attention I'm unsure how to deal with. I'm not even really concerned about the content itself, but more with how the content is edited.
	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
			There is an IP who made some changes while I was about to expand the article, so I saved my edit ignoring the edit by the IP because I also disagreed with the IP's edits. So sometime later an IP from the same range made a very similar edit, this time I explained it in detail why I don't think these edits are appropriate ] and even before I could save my edit on the talk page, ] also made such a similar edit. I saw that Dan Palraz even moved ] which was fortunately soon reverted as undiscussed move by ].
			I don't want an edit war, so I will not edit this page now (and it's getting late, UTC+1). I'm always happy when others help improving articles, but not in the way it's happening currently. So I kindly ask Dan Palraz to revert their edits and discuss such edits on the talk page first and I'm seeking help from an administrator so this doesn't escalate to a real conflict. Thanks for reading this. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	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)
			{{abot}}
			== Potential paid article writing (or just very bad form) by @] ==
	: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)
			{{atop
	::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)
			| result = Nothing left to do here. ] (]) 00:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			I have no evidence for paid article writing, but otherwise this is very bad form. A quick look at @]'s edit history is they almost always start with a sandbox article before moving to draft and then moving into mainspace, completely bypassing the ] process. And they seem to do so for only high profile ]s like with ], ], ], and ]. I took a look at Ivan Yuen's page and it read like a resume, both in the "glowing positive review" sense and in the "meaningless vague garbage" sense. I trimmed almost everything from it before changing my !vote to Delete on the AfD. A brief skim of ] notes the same problem, and the references listed almost exclusively describe ], who is her considerably more famous husband. ] (]) 22:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::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 ]:
	:::*]
	:::*]
	:::--<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 03:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
			:Nevermind. Checkuser got to them first. You can archive this now ] (]) 22:23, 22 December 2024 (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)
			{{abot}}
	:::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)
	::::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)
			== PayPal Honey edit warring ==
	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.
			{{atop|1=Page protected. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Anybody willing to check in on ]? A lot of edit warring over unsourced content is happening right now due to some allegations by a YouTuber. I requested protection at ] but it doesn't look like anyone is answering any requests right now. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Someone on PayPal Honey's talk page said that "all sources are user-generated", referring to how user-generated sources like YouTube aren't always reliable. While I'm not necessarily saying Megalag is wrong, I still think we should let more sources come out about this aside from social media and forums. - ] (]) 05:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	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’ve just restored to the pre-edit war version. It doesn’t look like much constructive edits were lost, and once sources start publishing articles in this, we can readd it. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:It appears that at least one of the disruptive editors understands why this is a problem. A RPP sounds appropriate if you can get some action over there with a semi-protect at least. ]&thinsp;] 06:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Looks like in the last few minutes it was fully projected for 2 days. ]&thinsp;] 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:shouldn't this be reported at ] with prereq diffs? ] (]) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I was considering sending the report to ANEW, but the Twinkle menu said I had to resolve the issue in a talk discussion first before I do so, so that's what I did. Looks like it worked though, don't you agree? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:also looks like user who was editwarring is a newbie who didn't know policy. we really shouldn't ] them, and newbie seems to show remorse and understanding . ] (]) 06:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor ==
	Barnhart, John H. "Some Fictitious Botanists." Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 20 (September 1919): 171-81.
			{{atop
	Dobson, John B.. "The Spurious Articles in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography—Some New Discoveries and Considerations." Biography 16(4) 1993: 388-408.
			| status = Forum shopping
	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.
			| result = Duplicate of ]. Please discuss there. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:24, 23 December 2024 (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)
			}}
	: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)
			Dear Wikipedians,
	===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.
			I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, but the contributor seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
	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)
			I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	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.
			Thankyou! ]] 15:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	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.
			:First of all, you need to inform Kriji Sehamati. I have done so. This report, as well as the AfD's linked on your talk page all appear to be generated by LLMs. This appears to be a dispute about AfDs.] (]) 15:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Supposedly blocked editor appears unblocked ==
	What do others think? --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 03:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| result = Globally locked accounts may not have local blocks, but still cannot edit. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 19:23, 23 December 2024 (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.↔]&bull;] 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. &mdash;&nbsp;Carl <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</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!) - ] &#124; <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 ]. ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</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. &mdash;&ndash;]]] 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)
			] is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of ] are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:23, 23 December 2024 (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)
			:My comment seems broken. The wikitext is <syntaxhighlight lang="">
	::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)
			] is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of ] are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.
	:::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)
			</syntaxhighlight>For me, and in a private tab, the piped link does not render, and I just see <syntaxhighlight lang="">
	::::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)
			User:ArxhentiVirzi is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.
	Incredulity seconded, but this belongs on the talk page. Closing this discussion. ] (]) 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
			</syntaxhighlight> <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:26, 23 December 2024 (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>
			::I've fixed it for you. You were adding this page to the category. ] (]) 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The account is ] which is why there is no local block showing. ] (]) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks! <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yes, always look at the Contributions page to check and see if an editor is blocked or globally blocked. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	== ] ==		== subversion ==
			{{hat|1=Global block evasion. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{atop|1=We are done here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			This ] is sabotaging some editions Like and and . Specially one Which mentioned with significant sources. thanks for the corporation ] (]) 04:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Hi everyone.
	Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to bring to your attention ].
			: has been and is attempting to preserve their disruptive edits. Their edits include promotional content for a specific individual. ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::who were blocked? Are you have argue with somebody or something? And you should prove that is promotional! ] (]) 04:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::IP blocked for evasion of the global block. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:(c/e) This appears to be related to edits made by ] which were manually revered by ]. Tismar was for "Long-term abuse". ]&thinsp;] 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			{{hab}}
			== Merry Christmas! ==
	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 ].
			Wishing the administrative team a very merry Christmas (though it's not time yet in UTC)! Thank you for all the work you've done this year dealing with so many vandals/SPAs/UPE etc., and enjoy a well-deserved rest day! :) 🎄🦌🎁 ] <sup>]]</sup> 05:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	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 ].
			== suggestion ==
	I am suggesting we unblock Defender 911.
			Suggestion of temporary block of User:ActivelyDisinterested
	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.
			As user add incorrect information, comment wrong behavior edit with not reliable sources.
	After all, we all lose sight once in awhile. :) ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)		Thanks ] (]) 15:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:ActivelyDisinterested explained to DerryGer120 about that removed multiple editors' comments. DerryGer120 that they removed comments, even though the diff clearly shows that they did. It was likely unintentional, which is what ActivelyDisinterested was trying to point out. ]&nbsp;] 16:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	: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)
	:No. Absolutely not. --] (]) 06:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Latest revision as of 16:36, 24 December 2024

Notices of interest to administrators

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

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164
1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	1	1
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	1	18	19
RfD	0	0	9	27	36
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 13 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 8 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 21 sockpuppet investigations
• 5 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 7 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 50 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 27 requested closures
• 47 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

ZebulonMorn

Closed with no action at the moment. ZebulonMorn's last edit was nearly six days ago and some of their comments below appear to be conciliatory, although others were evasive—direct replies are wanted, not "Happy to answer anything else if needed". If further issues arise, please explain them at User talk:ZebulonMorn and ping me if necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

@Engineerchange: can you provide the community with examples linked with WP:DIF's? Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Some examples:

- Manual of style on military icons: , , , (each of these edits are after the last warning on their talk page on Nov 29)

- Minor edit tag: , , , (each from the last couple days)

- NPOV about BLP: , , (user ignored feedback on their talk page and the page's talk page and has continued edit warring)

- not citing sources or adding info w/o support: , , ,

Hope this helps, --Engineerchange (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've made several changes to the articles ZM's added to. I would concur that this is POV pushing and it appears he opposes this Sheriff. I have no strong opinions on this individual, but at least some of the claims that he's made are not supported by WP:RS and are in violation of that policy as well as WP:BLP. If it continues, a block to get the point across would be appropriate. Buffs (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  ZM has continued to add negative/defamatory material about this individual against the general consensus of the editors involved. At this point, ZM, you need to use the talk page to come to a consensus. Otherwise, I support WP:PARTIALBLOCK as suggested by Deepfriedokra for further edits on this page. In addition, ZM has uploaded a CLEARLY copyrighted image straight from twitter and released it under a false license. At this point, ZM's attempt seems to be to besmirch the sheriff (no idea on the motive here). In Any case, a full block would be acceptable as well under WP:NOTHERE. Buffs (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Buffs: I obviously don't know ZM's personal motivations, but for a history of the threats and attacks made against Chitwood during his tenure, please see . --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• My inclination is a WP:PARTIALBLOCK from article space that can be unblocked if they answer here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hey! I'm getting in touch with you about a notice. Editing pages is pretty easy, but I'm still figuring out how to navigate the rest, so I'm sorry I put it in the talk page first. I've seen notices and some complaints, so first I should say nothing is intentionally nefarious. As far as the military edits go, I've figured that out, based on MOS:ICONDECORATION and MOS:FLAGCRUFT, so I've since ceased. I'm originally from Volusia and still technically have my residency there, so I do feel responsible and knowledgeable about the topics, however, after overwhelming pushback, I was clearly wrong. I don't work for any politicians nor am I associated with any, but there are people I find interesting and think have made an impact locally and should be included, but I get that requires a certain threshold and I was turned down. I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble or get myself blocked. Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy until the past few days or so and I haven't had any serious issues that I'm aware of since. I've made many edits since and most have been checked by Eyer. Happy to answer anything else if needed! ZebulonMorn (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Two questions for ZebulonMorn: 1) Do you have any personal connection to John Flemm (who you wrote a draft about which you then blanked and for some reason moved to Draft:John) or any other politicians in Volusia County, Florida? 2) Is there a reason that your userpage largely copies Eyer's, including the userbox saying how long you've been an editor? (This isn't an accusation of anything against Eyer, to be clear.) -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Something about mimicry and flattery, I guess? I'm curious to hear @ZebulonMorn's answer, too. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ZebulonMorn, I don't see an answer to Tamzin's question about your userpage? -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Noting I have declined G7 on the draft because it is relevant to ongoing discussion here. No objection to G7 once discussion concludes. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not an admin, but I was involved in previous discussions on the person's talk page, so is it acceptable for me to comment?

  The user in question has now deleted all past discussions on their talk page. I agree with above complaints that the user should at least be subjected to a partial block from editing articles about any Central Florida government officials. While Chitwood is the most egregious case, this user's entire edit history involves similar types of edits using unreliable sources in order to commit violations of WP:LP. The Chitwood article is not the only problem here, with this same user pushing a POV in the following edit (a "minor" edit?) which had already been removed and reverted . --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would concur. Buffs (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

My issues with ZM have been his lack of edit summaries and the unwillingness to engage in discussion with multiple editors who warned him on his talk page, which recently appeared as this until he scrubbed the content without responding. Just today, he made this "minor edit" under his own self-stated rationale that "Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy" that he was editing, under, supposedly "until the past few days" but it never should have come this far.

@ZebulonMorn has made a lot of messes for other editors to clean up, which he is unwilling even to talk about, let alone go back and fix, even after being asked multiple times to fix his mistakes. A Full Block is warranted. BBQboffin 03:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unclear on the use of "minor edit', I really didn't think it was too far, but I know better know. As far as that edit is concerned, was any of the information improperly sourced or unimportant? It hasn't been edited other than de-capitalization. I thought it was a good contribution that was similar other information under different offices. I'm really not trying to create "a lot of messes", I'm genuinely trying to contribute. As far as the engaging, that's my bad. I was still learning to figure out how to navigate wiki, but I've gotten better now. I'm not "unwilling" to talk though, I was trying to respond on talk pages for a couple days before I figured out this was the correct location, again my bad. I think a full block seems extreme, but that's not for me to decide. ZebulonMorn (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And, as I posted on your talk page before you ignored my comment and deleted it, please review our policies such as WP:OVERLINK. In this edit for example, capitalizing words like "marketing", "full-time", "landscaping", "lifeguard", etc. are unnecessary. Cleaning up your messes like this and this takes time and effort. When another editor cites a rule that you broke, please read the rule and learn it, instead of joking about "ignore all rules" and making the same violation a dozen more times. BBQboffin 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization errors are clearly non-malicious edits and ignore all the rules, while tongue-in-cheek, is still official wiki policy. I've made over 1,000 edits, most of which remain unedited. If this is really the standard for a "full block", there's no point in anyone new genuinely attempting to edit wiki if they're blocked for capitalization mistakes.

Again, I apologize for not understanding what the discussion pages were and the lack of communication. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

ZebulonMorn, can you respond to Tamzin's questions above? Spicy (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! My response to Deefriedokra was kind of an amalgamation response to a few of the questions from people. I believe it was answered there, but if there is anything more specific I'm happy to answer. ZebulonMorn (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules", in full, says; If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it. It does not mean that you can just do whatever you like. If other editors do not agree that your edit improved Misplaced Pages, or was necessary for maintenance, then it is not protected by "Ignore all rules." It does not excuse careless editing or flouting of policies and guidelines. Donald Albury 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Engineerchange Hey, you might want to check the conversation again and do your own research first. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

These edits and conversations have been taking place just over the past few hours and are ongoing. It appears you missed both references. It would probably serve us all best to wait until we finish communicating before jumping into the noticeboard, especially when it's clearly premature. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@ZebulonMorn: Respectfully, my comments are not premature; this noticeboard discussion is still active. Your insistence on adding more words to argue your point does not mean it meets WP:CONSENSUS. For instance, your comment "second source references Paul Terry visiting the school" is an example of a 'passing reference' to a topic, these are not WP:RS. Citing the Facebook page for that preschool is not a reliable source. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There are other WP:RS from the Orlando Sentinel, WOFL, and the county government. Facebook is just one source. I don't have control over WP:CONSENSUS, which is why were discussing on the nominating page? I'm explaining and defending my edits, as you're supposed to do. I'm also adding further information to the article that's been nominated for deletion, as is suggested to keep it from being deleted. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Removed. Rotary Engine 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Would an admin please weigh in here. This has been waiting for a conclusion for quite a while. I'll be satisfied with a non-admin closure if someone feels that's appropriate. Buffs (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Appeal of my topic ban

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

(1) The topic ban is not repealed.

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by uninvolved editors

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

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

• I would want to hear from the other involved editors before endorsing a complete lifting of the restriction, but I will suggest limiting the restriction to "race/ethnicity topics involving living people"; that should ensure that Wikidata-related edits do not inadvertently violate a ban. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban or limiting it to the restriction suggested above, per my comments at the previous appeal. The ban seemed overbroad to me in the first place: yes, the conduct was egregious, but the remedy was not tailored. As I wrote two years ago, I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-admin comment. I was visiting this page to check on another discussion and happened to see this thread.)
• Deeply concerned about the sheer number of alt accounts. It took some digging but I found this comment at an afd related to Donald Trump, which makes this a BLP issue. Another alt created a talk page for a blp. Perhaps not a huge deal in and of itself but technically a violation nonetheless. And Another afd comment by another sock, concerning a list of people, some of whom are alive. Creation of a redirect to a blp by another sock earlier this year. With so many other accounts, who knows what other violations may exist? I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction. Actually I don't support this unless and until Stuart restricts himself to one account for at least six months. It's not feasible to monitor fifty+ alts for violations. Just Step Sideways 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I concede that these are breaches of my topic ban, I'll take that on the chin. I'm sorry I made those edits, I shouldn't have. In my defense (a) They're 100% accidental (b) None of these appears to be related to the issues that led to the topic ban or contentious in any way (c) There are four of them, over the same time I count seven barnstar or barnstar-like awards on my talk archives, so they don't reflect the body of my work over that time. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Those are four that I found, my point stands that it is almost impossible to know how many more there may be considering the absurd number of alts you have. Barnstars don't change any of that. Just Step Sideways 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I also find it hard to believe that you accidentally commented on Donald Trump. He's famously totally alive. Just Step Sideways 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• I was prepared to advocate on your behalf... but I'm also concerned based on the number of accounts and what's gone on with them. I'm also looking through your talk page archives (#25 and #26) and noticing that the barnstars and related awards I'm seeing were actually mostly given by me. Archive 25 has 6 awards given by me as as the result of your participation in backlog drives, one for your participation / contributions for the year (end of year NPP award, given by Dr vulpes), and an AfC backlog drive award (from Robertsky). #26 has an NPP backlog drive award as well (also given by me). I do appreciate your contributions to NPP, but there is a bit of a difference in people going out of their way to give barnstars for great work and receiving them as the result of participation in backlog drives.

Anyways though, back to the key issue for me, your use of multiple accounts. JSS said "I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction.", is this something you're willing to commit to @Stuartyeates? I personally don't understand your usage of, and the large amount of alts that you have. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose These alt accounts are a nonstarter for me (some blocked) as are the acknowledged breaches of the topic ban. If they were inadvertent or debatable, I could possibly see fit to give them some slack, but what I'm seeing here doesn't give me a good feeling that lessons have been learned. Show us you can abide for at least 6 months and commit to a single account and I would reconsider. Buffs (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Why I use alts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban. Wrong. A sanction applies to the person operating the account regardless of whether they are using their main account or an alternate account. You are appealing an editing restriction. It is unreasonable to even ask the community to determine that all fifty or so accounts have not been violating that restriction, but by appealing you are essentially asking that. It took me quite some time to find the examples above, due to the sheer number of accounts involved. I certainly did not check every single one, but it is reasonable to conclude there are more violations than the ones I have already brought forth. El Beeblerino 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, I'm confused about this discussion of "alts" – do you have a list of these somewhere? If they aren't disclosed clearly on wiki, and they're being used to evade a topic ban or to participate in project space, they aren't alts – they're socks. – bradv 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

More importantly, does Stuartyeates have a list of them somewhere? 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I was working off the list of admitted alts here. It's... a lot. And no, they are not all clearly tagged as alts. I'm actually rather surprised this did not earn them a block. Perhaps @HJ Mitchell: can offer some insight into that? El Beeblerino 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's hardly adequate per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Well,I blocked several of them a while ago, I think following a thread on checkuder-l. The creation of so many accounts, especially with borderline disruptive usernames, naturally drew suspicion. I'm not sure what Stuart was trying to do. I don't know if he intended such a good impression of a troll or LTA but that's what he achieved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any accusations that I've used alts as sockpuppets, except for the decades-old allegations above which were clearly boomerang. If there are any allegations that I've done this, please be clear about them. There is a list of all alts I'm aware of at User_talk:"Fish_&_Chip"_flavoured_ice_cream#block_appeal. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: To be clear, the TBAN-violating edits on your alts do constitute sockpuppetry as a matter of policy. Honestly I'd thought policy forbids any undisclosed alternate account use for someone subject to an editing restriction, but it looks like the letter of policy, at least, only says that for clean starts. I wonder if this should be clarified in policy, as it's not really possible to enforce editing restrictions against someone when you don't know what username they're using. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well said. The TBAN applies to the person behind the accounts regardless of which account they use. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And also every single edit Stuartyeates has made since January 2024 is a sockpuppetry violation since several of the alts were blocked then (there are also blocks from earlier but they were username softblocks so can be ignored here), right? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art

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

(Non-administrator comment) Even though none of the three accounts seem to be students in a WP:WEP affiliate course, you could still try asking about them at WP:ENB on the oftf chance that one of the Wiki ED advisors that typically help students remembers a username. Otherwise, I don't think there's much to do if there are no serious copyright (images or text) or other policy violations. Generally, users are given a bit of leeway to work on things in their userspace and it's possible these could be good-faith drafts, i.e. not really eligible for speedy deletion per WP:U5. I guess the "draft" that's not already in a user sandbox could be moved to one just to avoid it mistakenly being tagged for speedy deletion per U5, and perhaps welcome templates added each user's user talk page, but (at least at first glance) I'm not seeing a reason why any of these would need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC); Post edited. -- 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've moved the userspace one to draftspace and left a message on that editor's talk page asking if it's for school work, so hopefully they'll be able to give more information. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Another one just appeared at User:Northsoutheastwestt/sandbox. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The good news is that the few references I checked were real, not LLM hallucinations. Hoping the AI is only used for images, not text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there any kind of guideline about including AI artwork in articles on here or is it just based on people's feelings in the moment at this point? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There'sn't. jp×g🗯️ 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

IMHO we shouldn't have any AI artwork in articles, because leaving all "artists' livelihood" concerns aside, image-generating AI is, as I understand it, often trained using copyrighted images - which makes their creations copyright violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not true. jp×g🗯️ 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons treats AI works as being in the public domain because copyright requires human authorship, however there's a warning about derivative works. I personally agree with The Bushranger that they should all be treated a copyvios, but that's something that's working its way through the courts, IIRC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I would concur with jpxg. You're incorrect on this front. By that logic, anyone who was trained in artistic methods of the another living/recently deceased artist (say Bob Ross) couldn't legally make similar paintings. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It is prima facie possible to create derivative (e.g. copyright-encumbered) works in literally any medium. This does not mean that all works are derivatives. For example, this ASCII sequence is a derivative work:

_o_
 |   <--- Spider-Man
/ \

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

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

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have unilaterally undone the block. You could have waited for Jimfbleak to consent to the unblock. A block for advertising or promotion would have been legitimate. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The block reasoning was manifestly invalid, and we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page. El Beeblerino 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! As was mentioned below, I am a fairly new administrator (September) and am still learning the ropes. I often try to be kind and see the best in editors when they've been blocked. In the month or so I've been helping out with unblocks, I haven't seen your name around. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I actually just changed my name and my sig, but also I've been more active at AFD, and on the other end of the blocking process at UAA. I do think it is a shame that so few admins work unblock requests, when it is only a few people, their opinions become de facto policy, which isn't good. I do know you are a fairly new admin, as I was one of the first dozen supporters at your RFA, under my then-username Just Step Sideways. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't like what I see here.

What concerns me is that you don't seem to have questioned the username violation aspect of this block at all. You could see the deleted page, and could see that it had no connection to the username, and that the name is clearly a common first name with some numbers around it. Being able to see and correct obvious administrative errors is part of the job, in particular when reviewing unblock requests from brand-new users. El Beeblerino 03:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, let's say she had, and she reversed the block instead of asking about the connection to the company. When that editor then recreates their spam page and is indeffed as an advertising-only account, and an irritated admin swings by her talk page to chew her out, are you going to stick up for her? -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Yes I would. However, you've misrepresented what happened. Again I will assume it is an simple mistake, but asking about the connection to the company is not what she did, she ignored that aspect entirely. It was 331dot who finally raised a question about it. El Beeblerino 04:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What? Hello there! Can you tell me why you were interested in creating the Tripleye article? Do you have any connections with Tripleye? How is this not asking about the connection to the company? -- asilvering (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, My bad, I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about asking how the username relates to the company, which as far as anyone can tell it does not. El Beeblerino 06:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No indeed. What I'm saying is that, if Significa liberdade had unblocked without first determining whether the editor had a COI and educating them on what that would mean for their editing on Misplaced Pages, chances are very high that the editor would return to the same behaviour - creating AI-scented promotional articles. If that happened, someone would again CSD them, and I expect they would be blocked again (this time with more accurate rationale). Maybe after a few more warnings, maybe not. Probably some flak for SL, either as a direct "wtf are you doing, that editor had an obvious COI" talk page message, or a passive-aggressive swipe at her in an edit summary or block rationale or something. This would be a worse outcome in every way than taking the time to check in with the blocking admin and figure out whether the editor has a COI or not before unblocking. -- asilvering (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah I'd no idea you'd changed your name. Secretlondon (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So, it wasn't even a posted article, but just a sandbox? Why couldn't the editor have had it pointed out to them that there needed to be improvements to fix the issues? I also don't agree with the whole "the admin who did a thing had to show up and agree or comment before you can do anything" nonsense. This entire thing seems overbearing, bitey and just poor admin conduct altogether. Silverseren 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren, that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: WP:RAAA and WP:Blocking policy#Unblocking. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem with said policy being the text are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators, as we can see from the above case and in many other cases (GreenLipstickLesbian has an example list below). There really is not a reason to presume that admins carefully consider their actions, personally. Particularly when that consideration is not showcased from an action in the first place. Silverseren 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I left a note explaining our rules for new articles about companies. That’s usually a good first step when a new editor writes a promotional article.

I can no longer see deleted contributions but all I see mentioned on 82James82’s talk page is a deleted sandbox. My understanding is that we are more tolerant of subpar material in sandboxes than article space. —A. B. 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. It wasn't submitted to AFC or anything, just a sandbox, and if it had been submitted at AFC they would've rejected it, not blocked the user. This was the users's first edit, and they got an instant no-warning indef hard block, and when they appealed they got an interrogation session instead of a reversal of the unjustified block. El Beeblerino 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The ideal admin, in my mind, considers the protection of new editors to be one of their highest duties. They should actively look for justifications to prevent or undo blocks. An admin who leans toward blocking without warning, or leans toward refusing unblocks when the editor expresses good faith, is more dangerous than a thousand vandals. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Good deletion by JFB, bad block by JFB, and good unblock by JSS Beeb. But after the unblock, there no attempt at all to discuss this with JFB, SL, or 331 before coming here. Couldn't we try that first? Shouldn't we? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to have more public discussions about the community's expectation with regard to the treatment of new users. I know you have concerns that the intent of such discussions is to escalate matters, but my intent is the opposite. The two recent recalls happened because the admin corps did not effectively hold colleagues accountable. If we establish a public consensus here that clarifies that that is something we do want from admins, that should decrease the chances of further ugly recall proceedings. El Beeblerino 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

My user talk is hardly not public. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. GiantSnowman 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin nosy parker comment) Significa Liberdade is one of our newest admins, so I think it's completely understandable that she would be nervous about going against two long-standing administrators. I think, @Beeblebrox, discussing this with her first would have been a good idea.

331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined. They do demonstrate a pattern of finding reasons not to overturn suboptimal blocks, and that's a pattern you should maybe think about changing. I know you made each of these declines in good faith, and you accepted that they other administrators had made them in good faith. And I didn't go hunting for these- these were already on my radar for different reasons, and I made a note of them. Sorry for the dates being all out of place.

• 2023-11-03 This user was indeffed for "disruptive editing", because on their twentieth edit they added "Category:Southeast Europe" to a plant that grew in south east Europe. (But was their twentieth edit and they'd never been told about redlinked categories before- just welcomed with a 4im vandalism warning for adding Category:American Surnames to an American surname article. No, I'm not kidding). In their unblock request, they said I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.. 331dot declined the request, saying Once you have gained a better understanding of policies, and have an edit you wish to make, please request unblock at that time.
• 2024-06-01 This sock block was overturned by @JBW (with the rationale This block is clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts), but 331dot had declined the initial unblock request using the justification You used one account to comment on the talk page of the other, this makes it seem like you are multiple peopleI see no grounds here at this time to remove the block. (For clarification, the user never hid the fact they used two accounts. I don't see any WP:BADSOCK, neither did JBW, so I don't know how 331dot did).
• 2022-10-15 This user was no-warning indeffed as NOTHERE due to their edits to the common.js/monobook.css page, and because the blocking admin seemingly did not notice the fact that the account also made several minor grammatical corrections to mainspace articles, had fixed formatting errors, and added cleanup tags. 331dot declined their unblock, saying This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. (What vandalism or disruptive editing?)
• 2023-11-12 This user was no-warning indeffed for making tables in a wikiproject. (No, I'm not kidding). A more experienced editor confirmed that they'd asked the other editor to assist in projectspace. 331dot declined to unblock them, saying It's not at all obvious to me that's why you are here.. No, I don't get all the Wikiproject people either, but the community consensus says that yes, those editors are HERE.

TL;DR: I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block is not a good attitude towards unblocks. We want editors to come back, and learn from their mistakes. We don't demand perfection. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yikes! A. B. 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The decline reason for Pbnjb1, with Yamla enforcing said provision no less, seems shamelessly punitive. Only unblocking when they say they have an edit to make? Just wow.... ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I will also point out their unblock denial at User_talk:Big_Thumpus, where a new editor who makes what appear to be respectful inquiries is accused of WP:SEALIONING (frankly, I don't think they're POV pushing so much as just being polite, which we should encourage) and blocked for sockpuppetry with no further explanation of any sockpuppetry at all, and with a CU stating there is no evidence at all. That editor, by the way, still has not been unblocked, despite being willing to discuss concerns civilly with other editors and with administrators and neither has User:Ceboomer (the 4th example listed). EggRoll97 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, there are only two options with that user - (a) they are a sock/troll/LTA, and (b) they are someone who is familiar with Misplaced Pages, perhaps editing as an IP, who made the spectacularly bad decision to create an account and head straight for ANI to vote for banning Fram (and you would have thought in that situation they would have known it would look suspicious). In that context, the CU data being negative may not be the positive thing it might look like, as if they are the former they probably would know how to avoid CU issues. Yes, we should AGF, but I can see why people didn't in that case. The other cases may be more problematic, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

How can you see why people didn't? There is no "obvious evidence to the contrary" unless I'm missing something, the evidence presented is entirely circumstantial and non-obvious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back You wouldn't be even slightly suspicious of a brand new editor that dived into an ANI block discussion with one of their first few edits? I would. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The guideline isn't slightly suspicious its obvious evidence. As a non-admin I would also have to temper any suspicion I had with being found liable for biting a newcomer, hence even when I'm almost entirely certain I still have to be open and respectful (and to just walk away when I can't actually prove anything). I do think that we tend to be pretty harsh with newcomers... If they're not good editors we ding them for being incompetent net negatives and if they're good we start calling them puppets. With all honesty I can say that I don't envy you admins though, the inherent conflict between being swift and severe with socks and AGF, BITE, etc is one of the great questions we face as a community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No, which is why I didn't block them (I saw the edit when it was made). Looking at their previous few edits - using @ in their first edit, spelling lead as "lede", diving straight into AMPOL, that is a judgment call someone had to make. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite hold up, surely spelling lead as "lede" is evidence that they aren't a long-time wikipedian? We spell it "lead". It's American journalists who spell it "lede". -- asilvering (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I see most editors refer to "lede" not "lead", which while I can't stand the terminology personally is well documented as a concept per WP:LEDE. It is therefore not indication of an editors' experience, ever. CNC (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The linked page says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and seems to overall document that we use lead not lede. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

People using "lede" on Misplaced Pages is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I see plenty of long-standing editors use it, so I also don't take it as indicative of anything nefarious. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney agreed, I hate it. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there's probably a conversation about how unblocks are handled that is worth having, but I'm sure having trouble getting fired up about this unblock in particular. An editor makes a blatantly promotional LLM-generated page, which is deleted; once they're blocked, two admins politely ask about the editor's possible connection to the company. It looks to me like it was headed for an unblock. No one's been rude or made threats, including the editors who dropped templated notices earlier. This looks better to me than most interactions I see between newcomers writing promo and experienced editors. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin

== Tripleye == Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules. The company equips engineering teams with the tools needed to enable fully autonomous vehicles or specific autonomous functionalities. Its camera-based approach, rather than relying on LiDAR, delivers unmatched visual detail, scalability, affordability, and versatility. By leveraging advanced computer vision and AI technologies, Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems tailored to their unique operational demands. The company’s patented technology, developed by an experienced team with a history of groundbreaking research and innovation, outperforms other solutions on the market. Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City. == History == Tripleye’s origins trace back to early work by Jens Schick and David Wegner as far back as 2013. Jens Schick, a pioneer in autonomous vehicle technology, built the first autonomous car at Daimler in 1994 as part of a groundbreaking project called ‘Prometheus.’ This was the first-ever autonomous vehicle, predating the 2004 DARPA challenge by a decade and marking Europe’s leading role in AV innovation. After Daimler, Jens joined Bosch to establish its vision group from scratch and later launched Myestro Interactive, a research company focused on autonomous vehicle sensing technologies. In 2019, Jens met Francois Dubuisson, a seasoned entrepreneur with extensive experience in building startups. Recognising the transformative potential of Jens’ innovations, Francois joined forces with him to start a new venture, and Tripleye was born. == Technology == Tripleye’s technology is built on a unique camera-based approach that offers unmatched visual detail, scalability, and cost efficiency compared to traditional LiDAR systems. By combining advanced computer vision and AI-driven analytics, Tripleye enables the development of fully autonomous systems and customised functionalities tailored to diverse industry needs. With a robust foundation of patented innovations and decades of expertise, the company delivers hardware and software modules designed to outperform market competitors. This technology is ideal for industries requiring precise, adaptable, and scalable solutions. == Impact == Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including: * Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions. * Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups. These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries. == References == * (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech) * (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024) * (https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)

One thing worth all of us considering, when dealing with potential spammers, is that if someone is using ChatGPT, as James appears to have here, that makes it a lot harder to infer their motivation, for better and for worse. That is to say, someone could be a completely inept spammer using ChatGPT to masquerade as a moderately ept spammer, or could be a good-faith editor who's made the foolish decision to rely on ChatGPT and has inadvertently used a spammy tone as a result. In this case, the deletion was definitely within reason under G11, but it's a good illustration of why blocking on the first offense of spam is usually overkill, unless it's like blatant link-spamming ("for the best online slots click here" etc.).Jimfbleak, I'm wondering if you maybe have some script misconfigured, or if there's a misunderstanding on policy here, as pertains to username blocks? I noticed Special:Contributions/Onüç Kahraman yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as Onüç Kahraman is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they were using User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage, a script I also use. It is somewhat easy to select the wrong drop downs, or to use the default selections on autopilot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I was prepared to ask the blocking admin to unblock but I wanted the user to show that they knew their text was promotional. I didn't see a username issue, but I'm not perfect so I was asking Jimfbleak what it was, if anything. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  You've been working around username issues a long time, and doing a lot of good work. I think you have the necessary experience and judgement to see that there was not a blatant violation here. I really feel like we're falling down in our treatment of new users who aren't behaving maliciously but just don't understand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. I assure you I'm not trying to have anyone burned at the stake here, I just think we need to address these issues and be more willing to undo obviously incorrect actions without waiting as long as it takes for the admin who made the error to explain themselves. El Beeblerino 23:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I get it, but sometimes I like to make sure that I haven't missed something. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll repeat something I said in User talk:Tamzin § Administrative culture:

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

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

  -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the allowed actions in Misplaced Pages:RAAA are all that problematic, though I do agree with you about the presumptions in the preamble. You can reverse if the following are met:

  1. Good cause
  2. Careful thought
  3. If the admin is presently available: consultation. So shoot them a message, and if they don't respond within a reasonably short period of time, proceed anyway

  Those three steps are not very restrictive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  They might not be very restrictive in theory, but they are in practice. It's far easier to get desysopped for a bad unblock than for a bad block. In effect the rule becomes that you need to not just try to talk with the admin, but actually need their permission. That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy. Or to put it more simply: We can't all be Beeblebrox. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank god for Beeblebrox then... We can't have all the admins form a Blue wall of silence... Somebody has to be the "bad brick" for the larger society to function. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

  Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to having this become a policy. Of course, there should be some latitude for the blocking admin's discretion, but a block with no WP:ADMINACCT explanation should be able to be reverted by another admin. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  We've had a parallel to this idea in deletion policy (para 2 here) for like forever, and the world's stubbornly refused to end. I do worry somewhat about the effect it'd have with WP:UNBLOCKABLES. —Cryptic 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  As one of the relative newbies around here, I've kind of assumed that the RAAA thing with unblocks is a hangover from the Bad Old Days of wandering cowboy admins who needed rules like this to keep the wheel-warring in check. I don't tend to mind following this gentlemen's agreement, since I value the second look. But it's the admins who make the bad blocks that are also the least likely to be affable about you lifting them. Then we end up with the problem Tamzin's described. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• It's great to welcome new users and assume good faith, but Misplaced Pages will be neck-deep in spam if junk like the above is not handled firmly. If I had seen it, I would have ground my teeth and moved on because why should I get heaps from people who think there is value in "These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries." There is more and more of this stuff, and soon people will be able to ask an AI bot to author and post their fluff on Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Literally nobody is arguing that the page was acceptable or that the deletion was incorrect. The issue is the subsequent block and making the user wait, blocked, until it was convenient for the blocking admin to respond. If you found yourself blocked for reasons that were manifestly incorrect, would you not expect and hope that reviewing admins would reverse it? El Beeblerino 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  If I had been the user who posted that advert as their first edit, I would know why I had been blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to be entirely missing the point that this was an indef hard block because of the supposed combination of promotional edits and a promotional username, when there is literally no issue of any kind with the user name. We can AGF that this was simply an misclick, but we shouldn't pretend there is a real issue with the name because of it. El Beeblerino 04:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I try to educate users as to why I have deleted their hard work with User:Deepfriedokra/g11 or User:Deepfriedokra/del. For the most part, I prefer to give them the opportunity to mend their ways in the context of User:Deepfriedokra#DFO's rule of thumb. Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out. It is important to try to facilitate that emergence, though sometimes a block is required to do so.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to second that Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out. (well, perhaps a slightly modified Inside every disruptive editor is potentially a constructive editor trying to get out.) One of the people brought on to talk about wikipedia in a recent NPR piece described a vandal to core editor conversion sparked in part by effective and positive engagement on their talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I do think we, and I include myself here, have gotten too hardcore about blocking over one or two promo edits, in particular when they aren't even in article space. I'm working on some proposals to address this right now. El Beeblerino 04:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Something that reiterates "we tell new users that their sandbox is for screwing around, don't CSD them for screwing around in it" would be hugely welcome. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes chasing my tail looking for anything that makes it clear where the line is, and all I came up with is that you can't have attack content, copyvios, or other types of "not acceptable anywhere, period type of content. I didn't see anything about promotional content in sandboxes. If I've missed it somehow, someone please let me know where it is. El Beeblerino 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Db-spamuser}} covers userpages, which I guess personal sandboxes are a subset of, that's all I could find. El Beeblerino 05:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No, there isn't anything clearly explaining where the line is, that's my point. I've seen quite a lot of "good faith" promo editing tagged for G11/U5 in sandboxes, editors blocked for having promo there, etc etc. I'll happily do the promo username+edits blocks or vaporize chatGPT nonsense, but deleting/blocking someone for sandbox edits when the template right in front of their eyes says it's for experimentation is really over-the-top bitey, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's time we warn these users that sandboxes are not a completely safe haven to test whatever they want, because as I see it, the user's sandbox template did not bring up the reasons why one edits in the sandbox might be deleted (whether from U5 or G11 or sth else). 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Please think about the long-term consequences of a rule saying that anyone can post anything so long as it is in their user space, or marked as "sandbox" or whatever. Will we wait a year to see if an SPA refashions their spam into an FA, then (if not) add a delete request tag, then discuss the deletion request? That won't scale. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. El Beeblerino 06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me: it's potentially a gate to letting spam "articles" stick around 'because they're in sandboxes'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If a sandbox is clearly G11, and IMHO we've become overly inclusive of any COI editing as G11, then it should be deleted. But the creator needs to be educated as to why. And yes, I share the concern about people using Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I know some would leap at any loophole. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Ah, yes. The Ghost of Wheel-Wars Past. Before my time really, but you can still hear the chains rattle after nearly two decades. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

As ScottishFinnishRadish correctly surmised, I use Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage script, and I'm aware that it's easy to select the wrong drop down, so I always check. However, it appears that in this case I still managed to fat finger an obviously incorrect rationale, mea culpa, I can only apologise for that. I don't think that the G11 was incorrect, there's no policy that exempts spamming in userspace. I intended to block the account as being likely an UPE, given that their first edit was a full, highly promotional page about a company, and then left it for uninvolved admins to review the block. If asked, I always accept the reviewing admin's decision unless, rarely, they have missed something like socking or previous malpractice. I apologise again for the error I made, although I can't help thinking it could have been sorted out on my talk page rather than through ANI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I frankly agree. This didn't need to be brought here. He made a mistake- apparently I made a mistake by asking him to confirm that he made a mistake(even though clicking unblock bring up a clear message "Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error") okay. We'll do better next time. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I realize that's for "accounts you control" but clearly there's some intention here that we need to consult with the blocking admin in general. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) 331dot (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and reblocked them, that would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. SerialNumber54129 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• On a related note, I think we need to sit down with WP:PRECOCIOUS and WP:CIR and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs trying to do volunteer work seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. jp×g🗯️ 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Misplaced Pages for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —Cryptic 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I vandalized Misplaced Pages with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Misplaced Pages because some grace was offered to them when they were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that you should have been treated with suspicion and blocked immediately on your first edits, because who just knows wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? Very suspicious.

  "They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the possibility to become one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's a difference between vandalizing Misplaced Pages for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point Cryptic refers to). 331dot (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —Cryptic 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to GreenLipstickLesbian's collections of your bad judgement? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see how "331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined" is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged would could be over-pinging. CNC (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  CommunityNotesContributor By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  CommunityNotesContributor: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  @331dot @Significa liberdade. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. CNC (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. El Beeblerino 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once Jordan Peterson style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would WP:CLEANSTART, rendering my point somewhat moot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. CNC (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. I present JohnCWiesenthal as a counterexample. Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at IntelliStar which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For advertising of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at Misplaced Pages:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking

• Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was effectively set incredibly low, exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. CNC (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. Secretlondon (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? CNC (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. Secretlondon (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. CNC (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by WP:ADMINACCT and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. El Beeblerino 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Or, better, My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. -- asilvering (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially "The specifics of the example isn't the point,...". CNC (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 CNC (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a long time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic WP:RESPONSIBILITY WP:MORALITY. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per cause and effect and remaining WP:CONSCIOUS. CNC (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Misplaced Pages as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. Risker (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I blocked based on Misplaced Pages:SPAMNAME combined with promotional edit. Name represents a website that functions to generate income and the user posted a link to the site. Is that kind of block incorrect? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Name of website (blog) is name of actual person, DJ Martin Dus. Link they posted was informative and relevant. The reaction to this is not some gentle steering towards "perhaps better a new username" (dubious if that was even necessary) and "please don't post links to your own blog", but an immediate indef block, and a declined unblock with a request for basically a complete plan for their future editing career. Apparently their error was much more heinous than someone posting blatant vandalism, who gets 3 or 4 chances before being blocked, and first gets clear warnings that it will happen. Fram (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe it was well within the bounds of policy and reason but the name could be a stage name whuch changes the equation slightly. Ask 100 different admins, you'll get 100 different answers.

I stand by my block of PaulSem based on the information I had at the time but my threshold for undoing my own block is essentially a coherent appeal or promise not to repeat the problem action so I've unblocked now I've seen that they appealed. That's not a criticism of 331dot because my standard for reversing another admin's action is much higher. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock, but I really don't see why that editor didn't just warrant some guidance, at worst warnings, for some of the links they included. I may well have missed it, but their latest edit added a good source, which you reverted, after which you blocked. Fram (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If the edit wasn't promotional enough for you to even revert, it probably wasn't blatant enough to call for a block. Or to turn it around, this is like when I see another admin tag all of a user's creations as spam, or vandalism, or even attack pages instead of deleting them themselves; and after I delete the pages and go to deal with the user, I find that the same admin had already blocked. How can you be confident enough to indef a user while still being unsure enough about their content - the reason you blocked them - that you need confirmation from another admin? —Cryptic 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The lack of reversion was an error on my part. However, I do acknowledge that I had only seen the name as the name of a website, and not also as a stage name. I have been slow on reversing the block after seeing the objection raised here, because one of the lessons I learned from a previous block that I posted on this page requesting review, showed that acting too quickly on an objection can create havoc, when the objection — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Itself becomes controversial. (I am on flaky connection right now, sorry for the broken up message). Will unblock, revert edit, and discuss either user. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Cryptic, I see things somewhat differently, and I am among the administrators who often block for promotional username/promotional editing and then tag the content, usually G11, for review by another administrator, under the principle that two heads are better than one. In my mind, it is a check on myself to help prevent me from becoming too stringent and if another administrator questions my tag or my block, that helps me adhere to community norms. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

So, what, you see a promotional page being made, figure it's bad enough to block the creator, but aren't sure it's worth deleting? What do you do if the deletion's declined? Leave the user blocked, even though what they wrote was acceptable? Unblock? How do you rationalize either of those outcomes as ok? —Cryptic 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Cryptic, the answer is clear to me but I will spell it out for you. If another administator disagrees with my assessment that the content in question should be deleted (or that the editor should have been blocked), then that administator and I would have a conversation. That could lead to content being draftified instead of being deleted. It could lead to a hard block being converted to a soft block. It could result in me concluding that I misunderstood and unblocking with an apology. It would not result in me ignoring the situation and leaving a contradictory outcome unresolved. As I said, I believe that two heads are better than one and I do not recall any other admimstrator chastising me with, "you should have deleted that spam yourself!". Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Why not tag the page for deletion, then warn the user? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Significa liberdade, because I am an administator and overtly promotional usernames are not permitted and call for a block. And an account with an overtly promotional username combined with creation of overtly promotional content calls for a hard block. I do not engage in friendly negotiations with spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328: Apologies, on a re-read I realized you mentioned username+promo. I thought you were just talking about a new editor creating promotional pages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And Cullen is of course correct by our current policies and practices. That's where I think the problem lies, not with individual admins but with the guidance provided to them, which I have been following for years myself. I do think spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia is going a bit far in many cases and we need to try warning and education as a tool of first resort, as we do with vandals, instead of jumping straight to a block. I am very willing to delete spam, but I have come to believe that the no-warning blocking is not really productive or fair. El Beeblerino 03:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The best solution might be the simplest one: we need some new blood dealing with blocks and unblocks. Either admins who work in other areas should pay some attention to this, or new admins with a newbie-advocate philosophy need to be given the tools to work on block appeals. ...any volunteers? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin myself, but I'm always happy to help give advice to users making block appeals, and to make sure they're on the right track! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade is one of those newbie-advocate types who has taken up this work recently, and I've been on it as well. It needs as much new blood as it can get. It's also really helpful for non-admins who know their way around to help out the ones who have clearly misunderstood something (eg, someone blocked for copyright, a promo editor who needs to agree to abide by paid disclosure, etc). -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help. A. B. 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

There are no deleted contributions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically someone making a living by backlinking a website for a clientand not just someone who is ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Misplaced Pages's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. El Beeblerino 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check every subsequent edit manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Chaotic Enby, I think that's exactly the sort of thing @Vanamonde93 is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he shouldn't be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: as the first technically minded admin I thought of, is this even within the realms of feasibility? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

  Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful. A user script could be written that runs itself on pages such as recent changes, the watchlist, and article histories, and highlights edits by users that have been added to a wiki page containing a list of users to highlight. Or highlights edits by users who have been unblocked within the last month. So yeah, that's technically possible. WP:US/R is a good place to request user scripts if y'all decide to go that route. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  For reference, see this old community wishlist entry. Graham87 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Examples: HJ Mitchell

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

HJMitchell addresses some thinking behind the block in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but the same happens with other editors as well. User:8neshebraWright8, warned on 11 December, one edit (not constructive but not problematic either) to their own user page the same day, suddenly blocked a week later? Nothing in the filter log, no deleted pages. If it was a sock, an indication in the block log would help. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That one was reported to AIV (which is where most of my blocks come from) late last night. I misread the timestamps and hadn't realised they were a week old but didn't see anything to be gained by unblocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• User:Anushka Sweety Shetty: none of their edits after their one vandalism warning were reverted, they seemed like a good faith editor, but still you indef blocked them. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Except they weren't, after the warning they removed or merged sections once and then proceeded to add (at first glance acceptable) sources to the same article. They were a good faith editor trying to improve an article, probably making errors along the way. Fram (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @HJ Mitchell, could you please have another look at this block? – bradv 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Bradv (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Why is this here and not on the user's talk page? If you have a concern with an individual user, as is the case here, you should first try to resolve your issues with the individual user. That's step one of dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I think this whole section should be closed and discussion moved there.

  Somehow, I don't think that: "But we think our torches and pitchforks will be more effective here", is (or should be) a valid reason to skip steps in WP:DR in this case. - and that's about as much AGF as I think I can give in this instance. Regardless of initial intent, this is starting to come across as a kangaroo court. The appearance of which would seem to be undermining whatever goals that those concerned may have. - jc37 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  To those concerned, it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue. That is, in itself, a valid perspective. Class-borne exasperation is not itself collective discrimination or punishment.

  If you are implying this is shaping up to be a witch hunt, I have yet to see instances of magical thinking or confessions produced under torture. Instead, I see reasonable evidence for users' interrelated, reasonable concerns. Are people on WPO rude? Yes, and I see no bad faith in their incivility here. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not seen as magical thinking or torture? Welcome to WP:AN : )

  And your comments do not address that this should have been - and should be - carried out on the admin's talk page, as Risker noted. - jc37 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Remsense's comment directly addressed that, e.g. it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue and interrelated, reasonable concerns. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Looks at the thread title ("Examples: HJ Mitchell"), and your and their comments. Uh huh, sure. Care to try again? - jc37 23:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Remsense's comment directly addressed whether this should be carried out on the admin's talk page, by using words such as not ... individualized and interrelated. Levivich (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Examples: 331dot

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

I'm not sure what it was that was "unfriendly" about my message. I try to be matter of fact and succinct, perhaps that comes across as unfriendly, but I'm not trying to be. As the blocking admin said when they removed the block, "we don't link to sites that sell things". That's spam. I was looking for some understanding of that point. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, but we've had a massive backlog most of this year and I was trying to keep it down. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• "we don't link to sites that sell things" except that we do this all the time of course. This was very clearly a good faith editor (their last edit before the block was this), not some editor interested in adding spam. Your reply "You were posting blatant spam, the issue is not poor references." was clearly wrong, and the editor just needed an explanation of why something like this is not an acceptable source, even if it was added to be helpful and not as "blatant spam". Trying to keep down a backlog is not an excuse to deny good-faith editors their chance to edit and improve along the way because you don't have the time to actually look at what happened. Fram (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you're trying to offend me, it's working. I did look at what happened. Say you disagree, say I was wrong, fine. If you want the perfect admin, that's not me. But don't tell me I did things that I didn't do. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  So you looked at what happened, and still called this "blatant spam" and sufficient to decline an unblock? Then we are approaching WP:RECALL territory, as you seem to be having too many of these situations. I also linked above to User talk:Cryo Cavalry, who was incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry. I presume you looked into what happened when you declined the unblock with "I think that the reason for the block is correct. " or then continued to be extremely unhelpful by countering "If you could please check my edit history, you would see that I haven't done anything malicious." with "Your making edits is in and of itself malicious as you are evading blocks." They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment. Fram (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please tell me what the acceptable level of mistakes is so I know never to make too many. I never said anyone wasn't sincere. I didn't have access to all the information. You are assigning motives to me that I simply don't have and I don't know why you, a former admin, have it out for me. Merry Christmas. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @331dot Please familiarize yourself with WP:BATTLEGROUND. 78.173.128.237 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am very familiar with it, thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't rude. I categorically, totally, in the strongest terms, reject that claim. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, let's leave the rudeness matter to the side for a while. Tone is hard to convey on the internet. Let's also not accuse other editors of having it out for anybody, because when in the history of Misplaced Pages has that ever gone well?Just to try and steer things back on course, @331dot, could you explain why you chose not to accept the unblock requests I posted a few days ago? And the others that Fram posted? I think understanding what your reasoning was when declining these unblocks, especially those of users such as Pbnjb1 and Cwootten13, will be useful for everybody. Mistakes are fine, but, and as an admin who monitors the unblock queue, you know this better than most, what other people want to see is genuine reflection and understanding. What went wrong in these, and what's going to happen differently next time? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but it's hard to be told I'm doing things that I'm not doing.

  • 2023-11-03 The user said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices. I would like to continue editing Misplaced Pages and request to be unblocked." They said they hadn't reviewed policies yet, and they didn't say what edits they wished to make, both of which would indicate their understanding of the reasons for the block. Quite often people say they understand when they actually don't. Yes, blocks are cheap, but trying to avoid repeat blocks is good both for the appellant and us. Nothing nefarious, nothing rude. Happy to hear what specifically I should have done differently.
  • 2024-06-01 I said "If you lose track of which account you are using, you should stick to a single account." I didn't say it was an inappropriate use. They also incorrectly said a personal attack was made against them.

  I'm happy to discuss other things with you but I fear drawing this discussion out more than it already is. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. Here we go.

  You selectively quoted Pbnjb1 there - which, I mean, I selectively quoted you so I can't get too mad. But they also wrote I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.

  They very obviously demonstrated that they understood the relevant policies and had read them. How much clearer did you want them to be....? Please, elaborate

  Additionally, I don't think anybody who has seen that block has understood why it was made, because we don't do instant 4im warnings and indefs for newbies adding redcats. I don't know why you've expecting a new user to have to have understood something seasoned admins and editors are scratching their heads over. I concur with you about repeat blocks- they're bad for everybody's moral. But accusing other users of not having read policies when they tell you information they could have only learnt by reading the policy? I don't know what to say here.

  For the next decline- you selectively quoted yourself. this makes it seem like you are multiple people. That's inappropriate use. You did accuse them of inappropriately using multiple accounts. Again, I don't know what to say. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, they said they read it and then said they didn't- what should I believe? A contradiction would suggest they didn't- but okay, I screwed up.

  I was trying to tell them why people thought they were using them inappropriately. I guess I failed at that. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  "then said they didn't" Please, back this up with a quote, because they didn't say they hadn't read the policies and guidelines. They said they would look at the Teahouse to get a better understanding. There was no contradiction. They demonstrated an understanding of the policies in the areas they'd been making mistakes in, and said they would ask for help in areas they didn't understand yet. But, because that was in the past, let's say you came across the exact same situation today. What would you do?

  I'll come back to the Cwooten13 block at a later date, just so we don't start spiraling off out of control. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  They said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices"- which would suggest they hadn't yet. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  ....no? A better understanding != hasn't read something yet. In fact, the use of the comparative adjective "better" implies that they did read it, and they did understand it. Maybe not completely, but very few people understand our policies and guidelines completely, and especially not when they are a bran-new editor.

  And you didn't answer my question. Let's say you see that exact same situation again. What would you do? 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would unblock them. I think this was just a difference in wording interpretation- which I'm happy to correct when pointed out to me. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  So, an editor is incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry, protests his innocence, and you simply dismiss his protests without any indication why. They then point to their record of good contributions, and you again dismiss this completely and reassert that they were editing maliciously, but you weren't rude? "I didn't have access to all the information." In the first of these two blocks, you did have access to all the information, but still denied the unblock and called it blatant spam. In the second case, you didn't have all the information, but still proceeded to completely reject any possibility that the editor was right and summarily dismissed them. The issue is not "the acceptable level of mistakes" but what you do when those mistakes are pointed out. Fram (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I can't do anything about mistakes if you don't tell me what they are. I'm always willing to change and adjust. I've never denied this. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  ??? Seriously? Perhaps reread this whole discussion top to bottom, it lists enough of your mistakes. Or if that's too much to ask, just reread my messages from today. Fram (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I mean before now. "Hey, 331dot, just a friendly question asking why you did X thing when I noticed Y thing was the case". 331dot (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  So no actual reply to my post then. You claim to be willing to change and adjust, but give no indication that you understand what you did wrong. Fram (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  "They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment." I did, but unsurprisingly many socks deny being socks. Do I get that wrong sometimes? Yes. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  The editor involved (nor anyone else) had any indication that you took their unblock request and explanation in any way serious, you gave no explanation at all, leaving the editor rather desperate: "Please, could you explain to me how this conclusion has been reached?", no answer. Fram (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have other things to do, and by the time I noticed that, someone else(a checkuser) had already engaged with them. I didn't want to pile on especially whem someone with more information was interacting with them. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  But it should never have come to that in the first place, if you had at the very least explained your reasons for not believing them at all in either your unblock decline or in your follow-up at the latest. Fram (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is actually quite illustrative. We have a situation where several people are telling you that you made mistakes and they're discussing what should be done. This seems to have come almost out of nowhere and you wish you had been given a heads up before it came to this. You're not sure exactly why it is that they're approaching things this way, and even though you're expressing that you're acting in good faith, it feels like there's nothing you can say that would satisfy them. If you're getting frustrated, that's an entirely understandable response and I don't blame you. Imagine the frustration when you're told that I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. doesn't cut it and your appeal is denied. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I see what you're trying to do here. I get it. You say it "doesn't cut it" but don't tell me why. I do tell people why or at least attempt to. We all see things differently and have different perspectives, so maybe I don't always succeed. But I try. I'm not the perfect admin certain people seem to want me to be. But turn it around and try to see what I'm saying. I'm not acting nefariously, I'm not a terrible person. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe you intend to cause harm. I've never done unblocking (obviously), and I imagine it's one of the more difficult admin tasks. My point is that there are parallels in terms of asking for assumptions of good faith, only that the newer editors don't always know how to express that. My suggestion, acknowledging again I've only been involved as an observer? Once a blocked editor tries to express good faith, the community as a whole should be more willing to help them express that. This is a ultimately a systematic problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with that, but that means more discussion, not less, and this thread was created because of a perception that "several admins" were "just standing by interrogating a user". It's my personal opinion, from handling and watching these over the past couple months, that repeated, snap declines are much more harmful than these longer conversations. -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Since this has devolved into focusing on single administrator's actions, I will ask that you either split this into a new discussion, move this to that admin's talk page, or collapse it as not to distract from what was supposed to be a broader discussion. Isabelle Belato 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've turned it into subsections Fram (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  This discussion should probably be moved into relevant subsection. CNC (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• This makes me curious, probably a good fit for the idea lab for further workshopping, but would it be an interesting idea to have a board specifically for WP:ADMINACCT questions? From what I've seen, asking on the talk page of the editor or the admin themselves gives pretty low visibility to the question and often isn't conducive to further discussion, or sometimes to getting a clear answer at all, while something like AN or ANI might be too direct or accusatory for a simple question. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps the scope of WP:AARV could be expanded to include such questions? 331dot (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  It could be, although AARV carries the presumption that the action was incorrect and should be up to debate to endorse/overturn, rather than a centralized place to simply ask WP:ADMINACCT questions with more transparency than the admin's talk page (where things like WP:OWNTALK apply). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Because it was a Terms of Use violation involving UPE. I cannot say any more without violating policy and documents that I have signed. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? Fram (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really understand under what circumstances that could be true, but I guess I have to accept it. Fram (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Fram (and others), it is not a UTRS ticket, it is a WP:VRT ticket (presumably a WP:COIVRT ticket). People who are given access to the queue sign the ANPDP (which is the same NDA signed by editors with CUOS). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fram I'm genuinely curious. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the ticket showed definitive evidence of UPE (because in my estimation as someone who can see the ticket, it did), do you think this is still a bad block in the way you have concerns about other spam blocks where the editor has stopped editing? I didn't become an admin to block people (I am a bit abashed I'm up to 175 blocks in my ~5 years as an admin) but I am closely following this discussion to get my own sense of community consensus about these matters. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If the UPE is about the deleted article, then yes, I consider it a bad block. If there is more to it, which doesn't show up in the edits, log, and filter log, then it may of course be a perfectly acceptable block. But there is, as far as I know, no reason to automatically give an indef block for UPE instead of warning editors, certainly when like here they have made many other edits which seem uncontroversial, and when the paid editing is months in the past and not repeated after the article was deleted. Fram (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Request for closure review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overturn and reopen Not a single comment was made after the request was posted to WP:PAM, and, excluding the nom's !vote, there is one proponent of the merge, who cited a concern that appears to have been addressed. There should be further discussion here. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Endorse: The sources added after the merge proposal opened are all about the book. The notability of the book cannot be inherited by the short story. Until there are several independent, reliable sources that establish the story is notable, this should be merged. The due weight issue can be resolved by cutting out the extensive plot summary and summarizing the reviews within the broader context of the book itself. Why not work on getting the book article completed instead of myopically focusing on one short story? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Overturn and Reopen. There's no consensus to do anything there, let alone merge. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Request removing creation block at Alpha Beta Chi

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

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

---

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

If an editor wants to create this in good faith then I don't see why not, but I must say that I find this whole "Greek letter" thing extremely childish, so I certainly won't be editing the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The article was SALTed for lack of a credible claim of significance under A7, not for persistent copyright violation. I don't think a Senate resolution and a newspaper article from 1942 – which are the only two sources cited in the WikiProject discussion – meet WP:NORG. I personally won't un-SALT the page until I'm satisfied that this is actually notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Naraht,

I'm not sure why you were advised to come here to WP:AN, the proper place to request a change in protection for a page title is Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. Secondly, you're best bet is to write a draft article and submit it to WP:AFC, if it is approved, then protection can be lowered so the article can be moved from Draft space to main space. Liz 22:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Naraht: I've undeleted it for you; salting wasn't intended to prevent a soild editor from creating an article in 2024; it was being recreated in 2007-2008 in unuseful ways. Because of Voorts' concern, Liz's idea of drafting it in draft space first, until you have all your ducks in a row, is a good one. But you've been here forever, I defer to however you want to handle it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't notice that Naraht had been an editor since 2005. Liz 03:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to Shavian alphabet

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

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

From the article.

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

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

• 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑? Sure. jp×g🗯️ 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done. jp×g🗯️ 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Call for decisive admins to clear backlog

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

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

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

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

I'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with that characterization more. In some cases (and you didn't name me but you clearly include me) I have already reviewed and I'm not supposed to review again. I also have other things to do. And sometimes I forget. Nothing nefarious like its being made out to be. And yes, I don't want people to post here saying "that 331dot's wasting our time unblocking all these people who shouldn't be!". Is that so unreasonable?

AGF does not mean accepting things on blind faith. WP:GFISNOT; Trust, but verify. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I said or implied it was anything nefarious, as I don't think it is. I don't agree with the prolonged quizzes and goalpost moving I'm seeing in some of these requests, that's true, and sure, some of that is you but it isn't just you. It seems to me that we have an issue here exactly because too few admins are working in this area, and that group has developed their own version of "how it's supposed to work" that I do not think jives with what the community expects. El Beeblerino 01:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What the community expects, or what you expect?

I'm not being disagreeable here. You and I have been around a long time and I think it's safe to say we've seen a lot of blocks and unblocks happen, and many discussed here and elsewhere. In my estimation, there's no consensus on how unblocking should be treated, because it's relying on admin discretion on a case by case basis. And questioning the blocked user to get more info - rather than ignoring and leaving them blocked! - was always seen as more merciful and giving the opportunity for AGF. We always have said that we as a community believe in the opportunity for redemption here. But not at the expense of disruption to the project. (See also Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Unblock_requests, especially the first line.)

All that said, concerning one of your comments, if an admin is going on vacation, a wiki-break, or whatever, then out of courtesy, they should note here that they are dropping certain tasks (like an unblock review) so that there is less confusion, and someone else can pick up the ball. - jc37 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I do second the request for help, though. Thank you in advance. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have some hypotheticals in response to your implication that current admins staffing RFU are acting unreasonably:

• between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the exact edits they would make. SpamEditor is blocked for spamming links to their small business. They request an unblock, with the statement: "Sorry I just want to edit Misplaced Pages productively, I won't do it again". AdminUnblocker uses the {{2nd chance}} template. SE complies with that template after two weeks, and submits an article edit. AU and a couple of other admins comment on it. BlockingAdmin is consulted per the blocking policy, but takes a week or so to respond because they're on vacation.
• I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock. MeanEditor is blocked for making personal attacks based on three or four diffs and without any preceding discussion or AN/I report. ME requests to be unblocked, stating that they won't make personal attacks ever again, and sincerely apologizing for their conduct. While reviewing the unblock request, AU looks at ME's edit history and sees that ME had also regularly added unsourced information to articles. AU asks ME to explain what WP:V requires and to provide an example of a reliable source. After a back and forth, ME passes the exercise and is unblocked. Now, assume AU hadn't asked those questions and instead unblockes ME based solely on the sincerity of the apology. The next day, ME inserts unsourced information into several articles, continues after a final warning, and is indef'd.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• I also want it on the record that I strongly disagree with Beeblebrox's removal of KathiWarriorDarbar's block, a block that three admins (including me) didn't think should be removed. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• We can also add to the record that Beeblerox unblocked Jisshu, who had been blocked for copyright violations. In the meantime, Jisshu had been contributing to Simple Misplaced Pages... where many of their edits consisted of close paraphrasing. As documented here, the editor immediately returned to adding copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages and has been reblocked. Although I'm all for clearing the backlog, it's also important not to be sloppy about it. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I second this. I want to unblock people, but I also don't want to see them back, both for them(so they become good contributors) and for us(so we don't waste more time dealing with repeat appellants). Yes, blocks are cheap, and often WP:ROPE is good, but not always. I also am aware of no policy that says only the stated/logged issue can be dealt with and nothing else, especially in the face of clear evidence. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your "clear evidence" is too often a brand new editor who was blocked way too harshly instead of being warned, and then gets their unblock declined because they didn't fully understand the block (how could they?). The previous discussion included plenty of recent such episodes where you were involved (together with others). I don't get why blatant vandalism gets 4 warnings, but people adding helpful links to informative but unacceptable sources (their own blog, a commercial site they don't seem to be affiliated with) get an indef block without a warning and then a very unhelpful treatment when they ask for an unblock. Fram (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to balance being helpful with avoiding the user telling me what I want to hear(giving them the information I'm looking for). I provide help when specifically asked. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  add to the record? What record? The record of giving people a second chance and then being disappointed but not particularly surprised when they squander it? As far as I'm concerned that's how this is supposed to work. Simple unblock requests from newer users making a reasonable request for a second chance don't require a committee to deal with them. El Beeblerino 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, El Beeblerino. It is a follow-up on 331dot's wording of I also want it on the record, which is a phrase. (I believe that it is likely you knew that question was false when you replied, but on the off chance you didn't.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  But this was an editor who hadn't learned they were about to squander it! Did you think they were lying when they said they understood what paraphrasing was? If yes, why unblock? If no, why set them up for failure like this? -- asilvering (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  You asked them several questions and they gave at least semi-reasonable replies. They admitted they had copied material word-for word and said they would paraphrase in the future. You declined to action the report after all that, saying that someone needed to check their edits on another project for copyvios.

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

  As far as I am concerned, this specific matter has already been resolved. El Beeblerino 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly I suspect that exactly this reaction is what's actually going on here: admins are reluctant to unblock people for the same reason governors are unwilling to pardon people, because if they let someone edit and they do something bad again people will rightly-or-wrongly now blame the unblocking admin for it. Loki (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  What I do is add an event to my calendar so that I get a daily email reminder to check the unblocked person's contribs. I typically have several of these happening. This system gives the opportunity to give timely feedback if they are still not getting it, or to reblock if necessary. Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Diannaa (and others): may I take a moment to recommend User:SD0001/W-Ping.js which lets you create reminders onwiki which then appear on your watchlist. You can even "snooze" them once they appear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Sob story About a year ago, I decisively tackled CAT:UNBLOCK. It was exhausting. It was disheartening. I felt constant fear of making a mistake. That fear got worse when many of those I unblocked resumed disruption and were reblocked. The sense of achievement from the few successful unblocks was not enough to overcome the sense of stupidity I felt from the reblocks. I gave up. @Beeblebrox:, you have renewed my willingness to make decisive (if high-risk) unblocks. @Tamzin, JBW, and Asilvering:, are you with me?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's weird, because recently this page has made me want to hand back my barely-unwrapped mop. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Don't get discouraged. Remember it is a learning and relearning experience. Be open to feedback and adjust your focus and methodology as needed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm in a similar position. I waded in to CAT:UNBLOCK some time ago to try and help clear the backlog and pretty much every case I looked at was seemingly already being reviewed by other admins. Despite the volume of requests in there, I found very few "virgin" requests where I could pop in and make a quick decision without overriding anyone but the blocking admin.

I agree with @Beeblebrox, we need to stop the protracted discussions. If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. If you're not sure, err on the side of assuming good faith; their edits can always be rolled back and they can be reblocked if necessary.

Above all, let's not beat each other up if we make a mistake on that front. Assuming good faith is one of our central pillars and nobody should be lambasted or made to feel stupid for doing so. WaggersTALK 14:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. Why is this better than having a dialogue, answering questions, and educating the editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, with limited admin resources, that time-consuming approach just isn't feasible if we want to actually get the backlog down. Second, as @Beeblebrox has pointed out, it often turns the unblock request into something closer to what RfA has become, and none of us want that. WaggersTALK 11:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, outside of the context of this thread, my answer is, of course, "you know my philosophy, you know I'm with you". I believe very firmly in treating people with kindness, collegiality, and above all, patience. That's precisely why I have been engaging at some length with blocked editors. Given the context of this thread, it appears that "decisive" means "with minimal discussion or delay". I've already watched one editor I had been interacting with get unblocked without any verification that they understood what was expected of them; that editor was so excited to be unblocked, immediately connected with another interested editor in the topic area... and was reblocked. I don't think that was kind, collegial, or patient, and I don't think it was just, either. If that's what being decisive is, I don't want any part of it; it's heartbreaking. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll gladly endorse second-chance unblocks that lead to disruption, if it means we can avoid reaffirmed blocks that prevent good faith contributors from joining Misplaced Pages. It's the difference between short-term disruption on a few pages versus potentially years of contributions lost. I don't object to talking to the blocked editor first to make sure the concerns are addressed, but the admin should go in looking for reasons to unblock rather than the other way around. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

To editor Thebiguglyalien: Wait. You endorse unblocks that lead to disruption? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm simply describing WP:ROPE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

😵 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You 😵, @Deepfriedokra, but when it comes to low-stakes obvious vandalism and so on, I think this is fine, so long as the unblocking editor keeps an eye on the next few contributions to see whether the rope got used in the, uh, traditional manner. People who replace the content of an article with "pee pee poo poo" know what they're doing. I had gotten the impression from my early lurking at unblocks that this was unacceptable, sighed about the death of WP:ROPE, and resolved to bring it up once I had more unblocks experience. Since then I've only seen fit to apply it in cases where the block is quite old already, so it didn't seem like much of an experiment (and indeed, no noose-takers), and one other case with other mitigating concerns (I was immediately snarked at for this one, but so far, still no noose, just a slow-moving cat-and-mouse game I don't know what to make of yet). -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

ROPE itself says that sometimes these discussions are appropriate: Sometimes those prolonged unblock discussions produce real results in educating the blocked user about why they were blocked and helping them to edit productively in the future. I've made ROPE unblocks, but I've also made unblocks where I've had a discussion with the editor. By ROPE's own terms, whether to do one or the other is within an admin's discretion. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I've done both as well. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And I'm fine with that, as long as we're more forgiving to admins who make bad unblocks as opposed to admins who make bad blocks or are too quick to dismiss unblock requests by editors who don't know "the game". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If Beeb had asked the admins involved instead of bringing this to AN, I think you would have seen answers like @asilvering's. This idea that people staffing CAT:UNBLOCK are looking not to unblock people appears to be coming from WPO editors assuming bad faith. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That thread in particular has some extremely funny things to say about me. Recommended reading, really. -- asilvering (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm always amused when someone implies that I am under mind control from WPO. I assure you that I am quite capable of making my own decisions. Where the initial alarm bell went off is not relevant, I, myself, looking much further than the specific cases mentioned there, found what I believe to be a serious systemic problem in the unblocking process. I don't believe I said anywhere that the regulars in this area are looking not to unblock people, I said too many requests were being discussed at length and then never closed, whether as an accept or a decline. That's not acceptable. What we need here, as I very clearly stated when opening this thread, is more admins working this area and more willingness to just make an up-or-down call on unblock requests. El Beeblerino 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"looking not to unblock people" etc. was in response to alien's point, not yours. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

All this "that part of my comment was directed elsewhere even though the other part was clearly directed at you" is getting farcical. If anyone wants to help out with the damn backlog please jump right in. That was the point here. It's down to fifty-eight items right now, which is bad but not as bad as it has been some days. El Beeblerino 00:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Beebs, you could save us all some time if you'd just tell us which users Wikipediocracy thinks were improperly blocked today. I'm a little exasperated myself lately at some blocks that have been ignoring the assume good faith guideline especially with respect to new users, and I'd be happy to look into some but I'm not going to waste my time sorting through the drivel over there on the off chance that there might be a helpful comment. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  How nice to see locations of the targeted admins being brought up on the first page. CMD (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector:I have responded to one or two that were discussed over there, but I've mostly just been scrolling through the list and just picking them at random. I've found plenty that just needed someone to take action that way.

  I admit I shy away from the CU blocks. I know those were moved back to largely being reviewed by the community but I'm not actually sure how we're supposed to actually do that. El Beeblerino 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  And also starting threads here specifically about the admins and their specific actions that are being discussed there by people who are banned here. I'm not going to harp on this because I happen to be roughly on the same page, but do mind WP:BMB and WP:PROXYING. Regarding checkuser: I'm not sure what you mean by "moved back to the community" - all a CU block indicates is that private information is involved in the block decision, and for that reason the community shouldn't be reviewing CU blocks at all. Likewise checkusers shouldn't be flagging blocks for no reason. But if a CU has already reviewed the block, it's supposed to be good to go for regular reviews by admins or the community; I'm trying to be more explicit about that in the blocks that I review, if I don't just close the appeal myself. And like I said below: if you come across an unblock that's sitting idle because it's waiting on a checkuser, try flagging it with {{checkuser needed}} so that the page gets listed in the table at WP:SPI. Stuff listed there gets the fastest attention. I know you probably already know all of this, but I'm saying it anyway for everyone's benefit who might not. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox what's been changed has been CU blocks basically being appealable only to arbcom to being able to handled onwiki by any CU in most circumstances (and/or a CU removing the CU part of the bloack because there is no socking going on and letting an admin handle other issues that contributed to a block). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ah. I hadn't worked this area in a while and I think I was on a break when that change was made, so I kind of missed the finer points. El Beeblerino 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

• Checkuser blocks The blocks that have been waiting the longest for a response are checkuser blocks. I cannot unblock those, so I've not looked closely. Perhaps a checkuser could look at them?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I processed some from the top of the list that were marked as checkuser blocks - all of the ones I looked at had already been reviewed by a CU. I closed some but I am in meetings for the rest of the day. You might want to take a closer look, and perhaps consider adding a {{checkuser needed}} if they are still waiting. There aren't that many CUs that patrol unblocks, but the template lists the page in a table at WP:SPI that we all look at. I think they also get posted to IRC but I'm not on there. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Now seems like a good time to invite comment on User:Tamzin/wild ideas/Unsucking unblocks, my radical proposal for restructuring the system. It's already gotten some very helpful feedback from some of the participants in this discussion. Please note, this is still in the workshop phase, so I'm not asking for support/oppose comments at this time. But I welcome any and all comments on its talkpage about how to make the idea better and/or more likely to pass an RfC. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Trigger-happy blocks are for sure another serious issue here, we need to work it from both ends. El Beeblerino 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have little to offer here, except to say that decisiveness is a virtue only if the decider is right. In itself it is very overrated. I wish that people, especially politicians, would be more honest and say "I don't know" much more often. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Self-requested RM relist review

It appears there are no objections. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

"Early" closes at AfD

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

Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't overly matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. TheSandDoctor 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours since last relist. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, TheSandDoctor, there's no requirement to wait another week following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. SerialNumber54129 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear the AfDs I'm discussing have not been relisted; they're being closed before 7 total days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was actually thinking of raising different modification: currently WP:AFD/AI actually indicates discussions should be closed after they have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old (which is 168 hours + rollover of UTC day), which definitely does not reflect practice. I would agree that pre-168 hour closure should probably only occur in exceptional circumstances, though I can't say I've really been keeping track of them so I wouldn't know if the current rate is above my expectations. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done formal math but based on having looked at this over 10 days of closes I'm guessing it hovers just under 10%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been doing some afd closes and I have noticed this as well, probably done it a few times myself, when the result seemed unlikely to change. I usually start doing them less than two hours before midnight UTC though, which is three in the afternoon for me. El Beeblerino 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall you from the days I've sampled, but art of my thought here is that AfD seems more than adequately staffed at the moment. So what's the rush with any of these? Just let them play out for the full time and any of the many admin who are around can handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I just popped in there, all but one from today was already closed. I could be imagining this, but it feels like since I started doing AFD closes again last month, the other regulars have started doing them even earlier. It also seems clear that some of them are watching them days ahead of time, while myself I prefer to come in clean and just read the debate, but that's perhaps just a matter of personal taste. I agree there's no real rush, there's plenty of other backlogs that actually need help. El Beeblerino 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it tends to be only the kinda gross ones that end up on the /Old list. I've set myself a personal policy to not relist anything that hasn't made it to that page, but I'd also be pretty happy if we all agreed to only close AfDs after they ended up there. -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If the issue is that WP:AFD/AI (To process an AFD debate listed on a day page containing debates old enough to be closed) implies something different than the explicit statement in WP:CLOSEAFD (A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)), then the two should be reconciled in some way.

I don't think that there is an objectively better answer here, but the current practice appears to be closer to the language in WP:CLOSEAFD. Since, as WP:PAG notes, technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors, I think we may want to consider tentatively revising WP:AFD/AI pending future discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Except old enough links to WP:OLD and only things older than 168 hours appear on that page. So I'm not sure I agree they need reconciling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• As someone who has closed thousands of AFDs, I'll just say that closure times varies a lot over time (I'm talking years) and with different discussion closers. NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early, sometimes a full day or two early. I assume this is because they think a discussion looks like SNOW and they want to get the practice of closing AFDs. I regularly remind them to wait for 7 days to pass.

And we have some admins, none of whom are currently closing AFD discussions, who consistently close up to 9 or 10 hours early. In the past, I have often left a user talk page note about these early closures and those notes usually result in changes in their behavior. Then, there is another phenomena at 23:00 UTC, there is often early closures of lingering AFD discussions that are due to end between 23:00-24:00 UTC. In general, I don't get concerned about AFD closures that are within an hour or two of the appropriate closure time but I do post notifications to closers who close AFDs half a day or days early. We have respected admins who are irregular closers who close a discussion as SNOW that doesn't seem like SNOW to me! I'll just say that while this phenomena might be getting attention right now, the situation is much better now that it was months or years ago. I also recommend that any chiding of closers is done as a general and gentle reminder to all admins, not singling out individuals as we always are short of closers and some of our worst early closers simply do not close AFDs any longer. That's my 2 cents as someone who spends a lot of time in this area.

I'll also say that while I believe in the 7 day rule, we really get little discussion participation after the first two or three days, when discussions are first posted or right after a discussion has been relisted. We see little last minute activity in deletion discussions. That's my observation. Liz 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what I've generally seen as well, although as you know I wasn't regularly doing them for quite a while until recently. I figure when it is the last hour for everything, it's probably ok to close slightly early unless you see a very recent post that makes a new point or points out sources not previously discussed. Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.

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

For those that may not know, the XFD closer does alert you when you are closing a discussion early and you have to affirm you are doing so deliberately. El Beeblerino 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time. I have to register strong disagreement with this statement. It's not my experience that most AFDs are closed hours ahead of time. I think that most closers are very respectful of the 7 day guideline and only close discussions early if it is SNOWING until we get to the 23:00 UTC hour. I think some closers, admins and NACs, have a SNOW bar that is too low (like 4 Keeps or 4 Deletes) but that is a subjective judgment on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. Liz 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion. An AfD should be closed when the outcome is clear. A WP:SNOW close is absolutely fine when the snow has fallen. An early close by a few hours is fine when, aside from outliers making weak arguments, there is overwhelming consensus for specific outcome that cannot realistically change in the course of the normal pattern of an AfD. BD2412 T 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like a good problem to have.

Regarding, "NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early", I've closed discussions as clearly keep on the seventh calendar day, but an hour or more before the clock completely runs out, and don't see an issue with something like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wanda Toscanini Horowitz where there is discussion and only keep !votes. I've also had several times where I read through the discussion, wrote up the rationale, and came back a few minutes before the clock ran out only to find the discussion already closed early by another editor. Closing early (at least for me) is to avoid duplicating and wasting effort.

A technical solution to make collaboration easier when closing would be appreciated. I have no idea how the XFDcloser gadget works, but I'm imagining some kind of way to flag an AfD discussion not as closed but as "being reviewed" or something like that. Rjj (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii, I wasn't talking about all NACs or anyone specifically. I think it's just a tendency among NACs to be enthusiastic about closing or relisting discussions and so they can take action too soon sometimes. But NACs help out a lot and usually make accurate closures. IF I have issues with any editor, I bring it to their User talk page and they are almost always very responsive to criticism which, to me, is an essential trait on this platform. Liz 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, gotcha, and I wasn't taking it in a personal way. I realize it can be hard to tell with just text. Rjj (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Quibbling about a few hours seems to be clearly against the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. If an the admin has time to process a batch of AfDs now but not in a couple of hours, it makes sense to do that rather than letting them sit. For many years WP:XFDCLOSER has also implicitly encouraged this but colouring such discussions yellow instead of red. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  The yellow is just for relists, as far as I can tell. An AfD that is about to hit 168 hours is still red. -- asilvering (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oh! I've always misunderstood that then. – Joe (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'll be the contrarian I guess. I understand WP:NOTBURO, but by the same token, if someone is fervently defending a keep of an article, especially if contentious, giving the full 7 days is not a bureaucratic move, but one of respect. People have taken their own time to create such media (articles, images, etc) and we should be respectful of their time and efforts before removing them, especially if done in good faith. One of the biggest problems we have is getting new people involved. There's no quicker way to get someone out than to delete all their work. All that said, yes, a WP:SNOW keep = ok to close early. The same would apply for a WP:SNOW no consensus. Some additional, generic clarifying guidelines for both Admins and users would probably go a long way. Buffs (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Went ahead and went bold early: . Feel free to revert if you believe it is in error. Buffs (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  I completely agree with and endorse this outcome. I would assert that any WP:SNOW outcome can be closed once the snow has fallen, and that any discussion for which the outcome cannot reasonably be expected to change is in the same situation. If for example, you have a nomination for deletion that starts out with a handful of delete votes, and is followed by a flood of keep votes with well-reasoned bases in policy and evidence, particularly where the article is improved over the course of the discussion with the addition of sources demonstrating notability, then there is no reason to embarrass the subject any further with a deletion template. BD2412 T 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why should there be a different standard for deletion versus keeping? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

On replacing crap lead image for Sophia Loren

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

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

---

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

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

This is the reason for the topic ban. It's logged here. Reason: IDHT+disruptive edits. AKAF (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that you've been blocked six times for breaching the topic ban, I would have thought it would have been clear why it exists by now. Not only that, but this request is also a violation of the topic ban, which you should have been aware of per this discussion from last year. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think one is allowed to use the AN board, to request a proxy edit to an area one's t-banned from. GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No. JJP_Master (she/they) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Light show: It is concerning that you do not understand the reasons for your TBAN and that you have once again violated it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}}

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

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

---

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

This user is not eligible to start recall, unless the rules have changed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Nor can someone elected to ArbCom in the past year be recalled. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.

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

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

---

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro

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

Add to wikidata.

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

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

Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.

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

Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania

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

• Hi. Thanks for this list of links but this isn't really the place to make content requests. If there's specific well-sourced information in articles on other Wikipedias that could also be in our articles, then you should feel free to add it yourself. If you need help in how to do so, a good place to ask would be at the teahouse. Re the requests to add material to Wikidata: sorry but that's a separate site, you'd be better off reposting your requests directly at Wikidata.-- Euryalus (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Blatant vandalism

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

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

---

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

The article wasn't deleted, it was moved to Draft:Styrian derby with the comment "not ready for mainspace, zero sources and zero indications of notability, there needs to be more than just a list of head to head matches to warrant an article, it fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG". --rchard2scout (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Then why doesn't this user communicate that clearly to a user like me? Is it that difficult to do that? He can take the time to move the article and delete links to the article I have created instead of taking the time to say, 'Hey, good article, but you need to add source'? The source is the official website of the Football Association of Slovenia and I collected all data from there. Notability? Styrian derby has been listed here List of association football club rivalries in Europe for quite a while but over the last twenty years no-one had ever bothered to do the work and make an article about it. There are only four real derbies in that country and I created a page about the second most important one (apart from Eternal derby (Slovenia)). Seriously, it is this kind of behavior by arrogant administrators that has put many people off when it comes to editing Misplaced Pages. Instead of valuing INFORMATION and thanking users for the work they put in, Misplaced Pages chooses to value admins of whom quite a few are on high horses. This is exactly why I stopped donating to Misplaced Pages years ago. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You have been on WP since 2007. Isn't it obvious that Draft:Styrian derby has no hint of WP:N as currently written (and can a football rivalry have "Honours"?)? If you want this article to have a chance to "stick" in mainspace, try following the advice at WP:BACKWARD. Find some great independent sources on this football rivalry, summarize them and cite them. That is the work on this website. You can ask for input at related wikiprojects, maybe someone will be interested in the subject. Moving that article to draft is not WP:VANDALISM, not even close. And fwiw, Snowflake91 is not an admin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Štajerski derbi doesn't help much, but consider looking at , you might find something WP-good there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I simply used the template used here Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007)#Honours. How does that page differ from the one I created? It only has a longer intro, that's it. The rest is all the same - data/info (which is what people want to see when checking about derbies). The original article (which I had also made a link to) doesn't provide more info either, but no-one decided to move or delete that one. There are many references to this derby online and people who search for the article will not be searching for info on 'what it is' (even though that is also clearly described in the first sentence of the article), they will be searching for a comprehensive overview of results, which I have provided. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There are many references to this derby online Then it should be easy for you to add them to the draft article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And focus on the ones that show WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Draftifying articles that are unsourced and are mistakenly put into main space isn't vandalism. But User:Snowflake91, there are multiple scripts available that many editors and page patrollers use to draftify articles and they all make a point of posting a notification on the User talk page of the article creator. Please do this in the future if you move an article across namespaces. Install the script and it will post the notice for you. Liz 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I truly find this need to write a longer intro of what the derby is completely unnecessary. Go to NK Maribor and you will see the Styrian derbi mentioned in the fourth paragraph from the top. Go to Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) page. What does it say under 'History and rivalry culture' and under 'Fans'? Nothing. It says one team is supported by their fans and the other team is supported by the other fans. Duh! Who would've thought? And the external links (notes #8, #9, and #10) in the 'Fans' section are ALL about violence, nothing more. My beef is with these double standards. One article in Misplaced Pages (such as Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007)) can stand the way it is, but an almost identical article about a separate rivalry is put under such scrutiny and shelved (draftified)? Utterly ridiculous. If the article I created doesn't meet the necessary standards, then neither does Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007), plain and simple. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Your article had precisely zero sources. It is never going to survive in mainspace without them because WP:V is a policy. As for Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) - well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing, but that article does have sources. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, I mean feel free to nominate Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) for deletion if you want. Maybe check out WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY instead (which you clearly still don't understand what the problem with your entry is), the other article has an in-depth coverage from the national television station, like that article, and this alone would probably meet WP:GNG. Meanwhile, your article consists of 1 very short sentence in the lead section and a list of head-to-head matches, and 0 sources...close enough I guess? Snowflake91 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

All the data I got is from this source . Is it sufficient if I add this reference/link to the article for the article to be deemed Misplaced Pages-worthy? NoWikiNoLife (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Check WP:GNG again. The page you just linked doesn't even mention "Štajerski derbi" afaict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, utterly absurd. It is the OFFICIAL list of all matches between the two teams as provided by the Football Association of Slovenia. The page Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) which (under 'Matches') has links to match reports is using that same website as source. If that is sufficient for the page Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) even though the Football Association of Slovenia website doesn't mention the name 'Eternal derby' anywhere, then why doesn't the same apply to 'Styrian derby'? This makes zero sense. And the solution is not to delete both pages, the solution is to allow both to stand as they are. This is a clear case of Administration > Information. Red tape. Unnecessary. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it's called Misplaced Pages policy. No sources = no article. A source that just lists match results is not going to be able to source an article about a derby match, because it needs more than just a simple list of statistics. The Eternal Derby article, as already mentioned, has plenty of other sources. Is that one a great article? Perhaps not. Does it meet Misplaced Pages policy? Yes, it does. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This probably belongs to the talk page of the draft, but your info in this article is also fully wrong - for example, you claim that the first match between the two teams was played in 1991 (after Slovenia's independence), but you do realise that both clubs have played each other in Yugoslav football between 1961 and 1991 as well, right? The first match was almost cetrainly played during the 1960–61 Slovenian Republic League season, as you can see that both teams played in that league at the time (and finished in 1st and 2nd place)...so this is also obvious Misplaced Pages:No original research issue. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

One incorrect info is enough to mark the whole article as 'fully wrong'? That's simply a technicality that can be solved by noting that the date refers to the first match ever played in PrvaLiga, not the first match ever in history. Like I've said before, you are a control freak who stalks anyone who dares edit any Misplaced Pages article to do with your country and you see all 'outsiders' as somehow 'challenging your authority'. During the last week, you have come to my user page uninvited, while I was creating this page, saw that I was creating it, then removed something from the article I was creating (on my user page!) without even bothering to post why you removed that (you could clearly see it was 'work in progress') but never bothered to instruct that such an article may not be up to standards. You let me complete the work, then once I posted it live, you moved it to drafts. Pathetic. You're a stalker, period, and anyone who has ever made edits to articles related to your country knows this to be a fact. You follow my contributions page and come and 'edit' after my edits even on pages that have nothing to do with your country. Those 'edits' of yours are unnecessary and you know it. Again, I will repeat myself - you are a stalker. It's also pathetic that Misplaced Pages admins allow you to get away with what you do. Honestly, I no longer care. I thought this would be a good addition to Misplaced Pages, an article no-one bothered doing for over 20 years, including you, but you clearly want to assert your dominance. So, have it your way. But it's because of overbearing people like you that Misplaced Pages suffers, trust me on that. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Bruh...firstly, I'm not "stalking" you, I simply have (almost) all Slovenian football-related articles on my watchlist so that's why they were edited after I "stalked" you; secondly, I removed inter-language wiki links at the bottom of your user page (which were abolished like a decade ago by the way, now you need to use Wikidata for that), because Slovenian article sl:Štajerski derbi was literally connected and linked to your user page because of that, and thirdly, maybe use a sandbox (User:NoWikiNoLife/sandbox) for working on articles, and not your user page in the first place. And I thought that you would add sources and write at least some useful prose from that "work in progress" article, but then you just published it with no sources and head-to-head matches only and nothing else. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked NoWikiNoLife for the above personal attacks. I don't see any other admin action needed here. Sandstein 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST

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

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

---

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

Can you link a specific article this happened on, and which IP performed the edit? guninvalid (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be an issue for AN to deal with and I don't see the CRYSTAL issue mentioned by the IP user. Regardless here is a breakdown of the Malayalam category to answer the question: Bha. Bha. Ba. by Killeri Achu in this edit; Daveed (2025 film) by Arjusreenivas in this edit (At least, I believe this one refers to an ensemble cast); Identity (2025 film) by Arjusreenivas in this edit; L2: Empuraan by an IP user in this edit; Ouseppinte Osyath by SRAppu in this edit. Mostly different editors. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Marco (106.196.26.252), Identity (Arjusreenivas), Daveed (Arjusreenivas), Bha. Bha. Ba. (Killeri Achu), Ouseppinte Osyath (SRAppu), Rifle Club (Mims Mentor), L2: Empuraan (2402:8100:3912:3e18:a17a:4a77:e0c2:5773). Even released Malayalam films are retrospectively changed, example: Thankamani (CIDALEBRA20001).--2409:4073:4D1E:B3B6:64FF:716A:3833:210B (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:CRYSTAL, Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Misplaced Pages does not predict the future. These editors add speculative labels for unreleased films, which definitely constitute WP:CRYSTAL. Where are the sources for "ensemble cast"? --2409:4073:4D1E:B3B6:64FF:716A:3833:210B (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Just spot-checking here, the use of ensemble cast in Ouseppinte Osyath is directly supported by a reference in the article In addition to Vijayaraghavan, the film boasts a talented ensemble cast. Given WP:RSNOI I could still see why some might be uncomfortable with that. However, as several users have added this descriptor, and it can at least in some cases be supported directly by reference, this would seem to fall within the realm of content issue and is probably best discussed at WT:FILM. There is also nothing preventing anyone from simply boldly removing the descriptor with an explanation from any article where it is thought inappropriate and subsequently discussing on a case-by-case basis if any reverts take place. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Mass rollbacking my bot

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

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

---

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

Do you want the two pages it created deleted? DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that too. Sorry for the inconvenience. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done! DrKay (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Question about Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan

Asked and answered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

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

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

In my opinion yes, they would: the combination of that "significant role" and the scope of both sets of sanctions being "broadly construed" is sufficient to include them. WaggersTALK 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Have verified that this is an Armenian nationalistic claim: Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism page 3.

I'll add the relevant templates in Talk:Urartu and Talk:Urartian people. And will remove this comment by non extended confirmed editor. Bogazicili (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione

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

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

---

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

I am involved, but I believe that any outcome other than "keep" would be highly controversial. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Isn't it too early? -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Small technical question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Daveosaurus (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the content is still there, it's just been hidden for years because of the absence of a closing tag by the archiving bot? I wonder if this has happened on other archive pages. Liz 05:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me how to fix this. Liz 05:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone has fixed it (I wasn't willing to try it myself as it was well above my pay grade...) the only way I can think of for finding other cases of this would be searching other pages for the same error message but for all I know this could throw up thousands of false positives. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Same problem at Talk:Rajput/Archive 35 , 25 sections but only a few are showing up. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now (thanks Daveosaurus). - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You fixed the rest while I was looking for the other missing ref tag... there were at least two missing this time.

For future reference (until someone comes up with an official techie explanation)... what was missing was a </ref> tag which meant massive chunks of content didn't show up. All that was needed for the fixes was to find out where the missing tag belonged and add it. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Well, thanks to whomever fixed this problem on this one archive page. It would be great if we could get a bot to scan for missing ref tags on archive pages. I know as an admin, I search admin noticeboards archives all of the time for previous reports and if even 10% of them are hidden because the archiving bot is cutting off tags when it reposts content, that could impact the work that we do. I know that this is a longterm issue to fix but we don't know how extensive it is. Maybe I'll put in a request on the Bot Noticeboard. But I appreciate editors who had some creative solutions here. Liz 08:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit war with User:Mellk vs User:Rnd90

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

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

---

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

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

Rnd90 (talk · contribs) was edit warring attempting to restore this edit they made. I originally removed this writing in the edit summary that it does not belong in the first sentence. We also have IPs appearing to restore the edit as well. This looks like a pretty clear WP:DUCK. Mellk (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Dubai chocolate

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Nevermind. Checkuser got to them first. You can archive this now guninvalid (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

PayPal Honey edit warring

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

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

---

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

Someone on PayPal Honey's talk page said that "all sources are user-generated", referring to how user-generated sources like YouTube aren't always reliable. While I'm not necessarily saying Megalag is wrong, I still think we should let more sources come out about this aside from social media and forums. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I’ve just restored to the pre-edit war version. It doesn’t look like much constructive edits were lost, and once sources start publishing articles in this, we can readd it. ARandomName123 (talk) 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears that at least one of the disruptive editors understands why this is a problem. A RPP sounds appropriate if you can get some action over there with a semi-protect at least. TiggerJay (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like in the last few minutes it was fully projected for 2 days. TiggerJay (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

shouldn't this be reported at WP:ANEW with prereq diffs? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I was considering sending the report to ANEW, but the Twinkle menu said I had to resolve the issue in a talk discussion first before I do so, so that's what I did. Looks like it worked though, don't you agree? Tarlby 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

also looks like user who was editwarring is a newbie who didn't know policy. we really shouldn't WP:BITE them, and newbie seems to show remorse and understanding . Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor

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

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

---

Dear Wikipedians,

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

I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

First of all, you need to inform Kriji Sehamati. I have done so. This report, as well as the AfD's linked on your talk page all appear to be generated by LLMs. This appears to be a dispute about AfDs.Jip Orlando (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Supposedly blocked editor appears unblocked

Globally locked accounts may not have local blocks, but still cannot edit. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

---

User:ArxhentiVirzi is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of their socks are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

My comment seems broken. The wikitext is

] is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of ] are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.

For me, and in a private tab, the piped link does not render, and I just see

User:ArxhentiVirzi is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.

꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you. You were adding this page to the category. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The account is globally locked which is why there is no local block showing. Nthep (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, always look at the Contributions page to check and see if an editor is blocked or globally blocked. Liz 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

subversion

Global block evasion. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We are done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This user is sabotaging some editions Like This and This and This. Specially this one Which mentioned with significant sources. thanks for the corporation 2A02:4540:24:84B4:1:0:89D7:7138 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Hi everyone. The complainant's IP has been globally blocked and is attempting to preserve their disruptive edits. Their edits include promotional content for a specific individual. Harold Krabs (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC) who were blocked? Are you have argue with somebody or something? And you should prove that is promotional! 2A02:4540:24:84B4:1:0:89D7:7138 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) IP blocked for evasion of the global block. Acroterion (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) (c/e) This appears to be related to edits made by User:*Timsar* which were manually revered by User:Harold Krabs. Tismar was globally locked for "Long-term abuse". TiggerJay (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merry Christmas!

Wishing the administrative team a very merry Christmas (though it's not time yet in UTC)! Thank you for all the work you've done this year dealing with so many vandals/SPAs/UPE etc., and enjoy a well-deserved rest day! :) 🎄🦌🎁 MolecularPilot 05:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

suggestion

Suggestion of temporary block of User:ActivelyDisinterested As user add incorrect information, comment wrong behavior edit with not reliable sources.

Thanks DerryGer120 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested explained to DerryGer120 about their edit that removed multiple editors' comments. DerryGer120 denies that they removed comments, even though the diff clearly shows that they did. It was likely unintentional, which is what ActivelyDisinterested was trying to point out. Schazjmd (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards