| Revision as of 23:06, 25 January 2008 editKaiba (talk | contribs)12,047 edits →Piperdown questionable edits: pfft← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:51, 25 December 2024 edit undoXaosflux (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,865 edits →Vanished users holding user rights as of 25-12-2024: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| 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 = 123 | |||
| |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> | |||
| == A brief note to let you know I'm signing off WP == | |||
| ==Open tasks== | |||
| Not that you should be sorry to lose me. The administrator ] (]) 05:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC) welcomed me here only about a month ago. If you look at the new notice on my user page, you'll probably feel I'm too angry, too unfair, and didn't give WP enough chance. Perhaps so. Very briefly, my reasons are: | |||
| <noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}} | |||
| * I feel that Wikipedians are too involved with process (guidelines, policies) items that are good in themselves -- but easily become restrictive and a goal in themselves. People game the system, and use legalism for their own agenda. Meanwhile, I know what you think a "good article" is, but I find it hard to visualize writing what I'd think is "good." Simply put, there's too much tunnel vision - in the name of ideas that were originally good. | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard archives}} | |||
| * I'm deeply offended and hurt by WP's continued refusal to allow LGBT users a category, such as "gay wikipedians," so those who wish to can identify ourselves. Our oppression in the larger society is caused by the fact that we're pressured to hide -- and then people can pretend we're just a fringe group that makes no contribution to society. WP expects to continue the same policy, to rip off what we can give but not let us identify our otherwise maligned group, even only to other editors. | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| I would point out that the user ]] happened to be the immediate cause of my anger spilling over in both of these areas. Last evening, he unilaterally, illogically moved my discussion contributions to an area where they wouldn't be seem. And then he topped that off by informing me that he'd been the one who nominated ] for deletion -- and, with the discussion still open, it was a done deal that I'd better learn to accept. His actions are not by any means the only ones leading to my decision to leave -- but they are beautifully symbolic of the issues. | |||
| {{Admin tasks}} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| </noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove--> | |||
| == ZebulonMorn == | |||
| Good bye.] (]) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| *I object to the implicit insult in Coleman's many 'sign-off' posts (each one is the last one). I am not anti-homosexual, homophobic, bigoted, biased against gay people, whatever else you'd like to throw at me to see what sticks. I merely cleaned up an AfD, where the consensus after the fact is that it was unproblematic to do so. (This is the Adult-chid sex AfD). Coincidentally, Coleman also is apparently a recent member of the "Gayass Wikipedian" category, which I nominated at UCfD and which is headed for deletion. I attempted to leave explanatory notes on Coleman's user talk, but apparently to no effect. Its unfortunate that a new editor was unable to find a role for himself in this community; it seems as if he is unable to embrace the essence of NPOV. Some people find it impossible to check their personal opinions at the door. If Coleman finds at some point in the future that perhaps he can accomplish this task, then I hope he returns. <sup>]]</sup> 23:15, 20 January 2008 (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">[]]</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>{{reply to|Eyer}}</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">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Not an admin, but I was involved in previous discussions on the person's talk page, so is it acceptable for me to comment? | |||
| *::The user in question has now deleted all past discussions on their talk page. I agree with above complaints that the user should at least be subjected to a partial block from editing articles about any Central Florida government officials. While Chitwood is the most egregious case, this user's entire edit history involves similar types of edits using unreliable sources in order to commit violations of ]. The Chitwood article is not the only problem here, with this same user pushing a POV in the following edit (a "minor" edit?) which had already been removed and reverted . <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I would concur. ] (]) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :My issues with ZM have been his lack of edit summaries and the unwillingness to engage in discussion with multiple editors who warned him on his talk page, which recently appeared as until he scrubbed the content without responding. Just today, he made this "minor edit" under his own self-stated rationale that "Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy" that he was editing, under, supposedly "until the past few days" but it never should have come this far. | |||
| *I'd also like to express some disappointment that it appears no one has refuted his implication of bias in my actions on this page or any of the others (so far as I know, I haven't checked them all). <sup>]]</sup> 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :@] has made a lot of messes for other editors to clean up, which he is unwilling even to talk about, let alone go back and fix, even after being asked multiple times to fix his mistakes. A Full Block is warranted. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm sorry I was unclear on the use of "minor edit', I really didn't think it was too far, but I know better know. As far as that edit is concerned, was any of the information improperly sourced or unimportant? It hasn't been edited other than de-capitalization. I thought it was a good contribution that was similar other information under different offices. I'm really not trying to create "a lot of messes", I'm genuinely trying to contribute. As far as the engaging, that's my bad. I was still learning to figure out how to navigate wiki, but I've gotten better now. I'm not "unwilling" to talk though, I was trying to respond on talk pages for a couple days before I figured out this was the correct location, again my bad. I think a full block seems extreme, but that's not for me to decide. ] (]) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And, as I posted on your talk page before you ignored my comment and deleted it, please review our policies such as ]. In this edit for example, capitalizing words like "marketing", "full-time", "landscaping", "lifeguard", etc. are unnecessary. Cleaning up your messes like and takes time and effort. When another editor cites a rule that you broke, please read the rule and learn it, instead of joking about "ignore all rules" and making the same violation a dozen more times. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Capitalization errors are clearly non-malicious edits and ], while tongue-in-cheek, is still official wiki policy. I've made over 1,000 edits, most of which remain unedited. If this is really the standard for a "full block", there's no point in anyone new genuinely attempting to edit wiki if they're blocked for capitalization mistakes. | |||
| ::::Again, I apologize for not understanding what the discussion pages were and the lack of communication. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. ] (]) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|ZebulonMorn}}, can you respond to {{np|Tamzin}}'s questions above? ] (]) 21:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hello! My response to ] was kind of an amalgamation response to a few of the questions from people. I believe it was answered there, but if there is anything more specific I'm happy to answer. ] (]) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"Ignore all rules", in full, says; {{tq|If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''.}} It does not mean that you can just do whatever you like. If other editors do not agree that your edit improved Misplaced Pages, or was necessary for maintenance, then it is not protected by "Ignore all rules." It does not excuse careless editing or flouting of policies and guidelines. ] 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It's been a week. Could an admin be so kind as to weigh in here? Regardless of your conclusion ZM doesn't deserve to have this ] indefinitely. ] (]) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sexual orientation is irrelevant here. This is an encyclopedia, not a singles bar. ] (]) 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This has nothing to do with "singles bars". Building an encyclopædia of this nature requires that all editors are able to edit honestly and openly - something which is prevented by the attitudes and actions of certain users. ] (]) 19:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I do hope that you're referring to something more than a few categories being deleted. – ] 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I hope that comment wasn't meant to sound as snidey as it did.] (]) 19:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The fact that ] assumed that a category identifying gay Wikipedians would purely be used as a dating service, probably sums up the original poster's point more succinctly that anything else could. <b>]</b> 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fact that the topic creator seems to think the fact that he's gay matters in any way, shape, or form says quite a lot as well. He is what he is: does he need a badge for it? ] (]) 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::(ec)With all due respect to William P. Coleman and DuncanHill, the fact that these categories cause so much upset and dispute is the reason we delete them. There is nothing stopping people expressing their sexuality on Misplaced Pages (I'm heterosexual, if anyone cares) but there is no need for a category. Deleting these categories is not intended to be homophobia- we would also delete a category for heterosexual Wikipedians. We delete them because they do not aid us in building the encyclopedia, and, if anything, they slow us down through the disputes they cause. ] (]) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Agreed about the categories; I was merely commenting on the assumption made by HalfShadow. <b>]</b> 20:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, sorry, it was you I edit conflicted with, I intended my reply to come after DuncanHill's comment at 19:47. ] (]) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I've been here since 2004. I've been repeatedly attacked by vandals because I've openly declared that I'm gay. But never once has anyone who cared about the encyclopedia - even people I've got into huge editing disputes with, even people I've picked fights with, even people with strong conservative or religious views - ever even mentioned sexuality. We don't here. In fact, people lose arguments, badly and permanently, if they try to play any form of sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc, card. We don't do it. This place is amazing for that. And it works both ways: I've defended people under attack from vandals or for their editing style even when they've got userboxen calling for my basic rights to be curtailed; I've had barnstars from people who declare that homosexuality is wrong, and have given barnstars to such people. They are, of course, entitled to their worthless views ;o) There is a community here, and people who act outside that community sooner rather than later end up exiting it. And the community has decided, a long time ago, that everyone has a right to challenge any element of community structure - templates, user pages, categories - and each case is taken on its merits. The community decides if we need specific groups to be identified and in what way. So, William P. Coleman, please stay. HalfShadow, please don't make sweeping judgements. Avruch, if you're about, feel free to deny Mr Coleman's point and we'll believe you. But battling over the subject of what editors do when they're not editing is something we try not to do. We ''are'' here only to build an encyclopaedia, after all. ➔ ''']''' is standing in the dark 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll renew my concern... ] (]) 14:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A category is not just "identifying yourself", it's maintaining a list, and the decision was made that there's no good reason to have such a list. —] 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It's these kinds of edits that continue to concern me. The sheer volume of purported "reliable sources" that are being added by the user and us editors having to search and destroy which ones are valid. The user's continued argument that every source the user adds is "reliable" (see {{diff2|1263412965}}). See {{diff2|1263414344}} - both sources appear reliable, but have no reference to the subject, completely ignoring ]. --] (]) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I have seen editors personally attacked and accused of being pædophiles because they opposed deletion of a category for homophobes - and admins took no action against the attacker for this. This does not inspire confidence in the ability or willingness of admins to act against homophobia. I would add that the community can be wrong - and I say it is wrong when it says that Wikipedians by ethnicity or by religion are acceptable user categories, yet Wikipedians by sexuality aren't, and I believe that it is displaying homophobia whenever it restates this position. ] (]) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Hey, you might want to check the conversation again and do your own research first. ] (]) 17:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| (edit conflict): I am looking at this from the periphery ... part of the problem is that there have been perennial disputes about whether Article space and User space or Wikpedia space should intersect in meaningful ways. The Userbox wars were in part about the intersection between Template and User spaces. Likewise there has been a lowerkey (as far as I've seen) UserCat war that is similarly about the intersection between Category and User spaces. One thing I've seen over and over again is people putting forth one mechanistic solution - like using a category - and not seeking alternative mechanisms; oftentimes mechanism changes can, in fact, defuse conflicts of this sort. So here is my suggestion - use a subpage of ] as a point of recognition for sexual orientation with the legitimate argument that persons belonging to a community have a valuable perspective on that community which has a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Placing this under the rubrick of the LGBT WP provides 'ownership' for the resource, which might allay some of the concerns of persons who are against (for whatever reason) sharing this type of information. As far as the argument that such a list should not exist ''at all'', a great deal of latitude is provided to WikiProjects with regard to the creation of resources that are felt to advance the encyclopedia-building activities of the group of similarly inclined editors around which a WikiProject forms. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::These edits and conversations have been taking place just over the past few hours and are ongoing. It appears you missed both references. It would probably serve us all best to wait until we finish communicating before jumping into the noticeboard, especially when it's clearly premature. ] (]) 17:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{reply|ZebulonMorn}} Respectfully, my comments are not premature; this noticeboard discussion is still active. Your insistence on adding more words to argue your point does not mean it meets ]. For instance, your comment "second source references Paul Terry visiting the school" is an example of a 'passing reference' to a topic, these are not ]. Citing the Facebook page for that preschool is not a reliable source. --] (]) 18:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are other ] from the ], ], and the county government. Facebook is just one source. I don't have control over ], which is why were discussing on the nominating page? I'm explaining and defending my edits, as you're supposed to do. I'm also adding further information to the article that's been nominated for deletion, as is suggested to keep it from being deleted. ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| On an AfD for a preschool, they mentioned "The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious" (with sources about Terry), to which I replied "And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? ]." Instead of replying, they decided to add this information to the article, so now we have an article about a preschool containing a whole section about a deputy sheriff who "murdered his 10-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son before killing himself" in 2005, with the only connection being that the same person once visited that preschool in 1999! This raises serious ] issues. As the AfD nominator, I have not removed the info from the article, but it clearly doesn't belong there at all... ] (]) 18:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I take my usual position here - that categories that appear to be irrelevant to the purpose of writing the encyclopedia are valuable for community-building and building support circles, which provide incentive and motivation for many encyclopedia-related activities. People who ''interact'' are bound to ''collaborate'', and any structure promoting this is a good thing. ] 22:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is rather the point of a wikiproject, is it not? Putting me in a category that says I am a fan of the ] does not serve to enhance collaboration. My membership in ], however, does. More to the point, my being a nominally Christian Canadian does not automatically mean I am particularly interested in editing topics related to Christianity or Canada. So no, putting me in such categories does not enhance collaboration at all. Same is true of virtually every user category. There are better mechanisms in place to enhance collaboration. ]] 23:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Removed. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Need for user pages?=== | |||
| ::Thanks! ] (]) 10:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Does user pages help Misplaced Pages at all? Is it just a concession to myspace? My user page is only 5 characters more than the minimum. It says hello. No user boxes. No fancy graphics. I can see the value of talk pages, but user pages? We'd save bandwidth and controversy. If there is an explanation why user pages are useful, I am open minded. ] (]) 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :My userpage here is not as sparse as yours, but for an example of highly useful userpages, see mine at enwikibooks. My toolbox provides insane convinence, and the number of "why did you delete that?" and "what does {{tl|nld}} mean?" threads on my talk page have dropped to almost nothing due to the header, which also appears collapsed at the top of my talk page. '''– ].]''' | <sup>]</sup> 02:32, 21 January 2008 (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) | |||
| :A user page is a desktop from which to work on the encyclopedia. Sometimes there are bobble head dolls or a stand-up "I love (insert state here)!" cardboard cutout vying for space alongside an in-box and a pile of partially written reports, and that is what you will see when walking down the corridor past open cubicles on the way to your next meeting in most office settings. --User:Ceyockey (<small>'']''</small>) 04:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Appeal of my topic ban == | |||
| ::Wow. Perfect metaphor. I completely agree. ''']]''' 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=This has been open for two weeks, and {{ping|Stuartyeates}} hasn't edited since the 16th. Given the discussion below, I'm closing this with the following notes:<br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| (1) The topic ban is not repealed.<br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| (2) Stuartyeates is '''heavily encouraged to only edit using one account, and one account only'''.<br> | |||
| <br> | |||
| If (2) is complied with (1) can be revisited in another six months or so. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| TL;DR: on (roughly) the 20th anniversary of joining en.wiki, I'm appealing my years-long topic ban from BLPs. | |||
| After creating thousands of biographies (mainly of New Zealanders and/or academics) over more than a decade, on 25 Sept 2021 I created or expanded ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] with material on a then-current race controversy. I then continued editing as normal. Several months later (April '22) an editor raised issues with my edits of that day and I escalated to ]. After much discussion I received an indefinite topic ban from BLPs: | |||
| : Well my Misplaced Pages user page predates MySpace, so they've been around for a long time. Their intent is to help build community, to provide a clue about the personality of its owner. (Mine is utalitarian but somewhat raggedy-looking because I'd rather spend my time getting content into Misplaced Pages than making it look nice. Or else because I'm lazy. Take your pick.) I wish more people would take a moment & put someting on their user pages -- not userboxen, or fancy graphics or images. Just something about oneself, one's interests, one's background as far as it's relevant to Misplaced Pages. Then if I need to talk to them, I have a sense of how to present myself to them. -- ] (]) 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''Stuartyeates is indefinitely topic banned from the subject area of biographies of living persons, broadly construed.''' (see ]). | |||
| Since the topic ban I've done some editing of en.wiki (>2,000 edits, some patrols and some barnstars), but I've been mainly active on wikidata (>60,000 edits, no barnstars). | |||
| ===Visibility=== | |||
| A Gay Wikipedians category establishes ''visibility''. It's easy to allow the inertia of ] to remain when the issue is relatively low on the radar. However, such a category helps support WP's goals of harmonious collaboration by giving those who identify as "Gayass Wikipedians" (and I'm one of them) the same kind of respect as say, oh I don't know, "Christian Wikipedians". Seriously, can you imagine the furor if WP editors tried to ] Christians from self-identifying? Please. No really, let's go back and reread this whole thread replacing "gay" with "Christian", or "Jewish", or "Muslim". If a gay usercat is verboten, then all usercats should be. I'll be blunt, this seems an awful lot like bigotry. | |||
| 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 ]). | |||
| Visibility of self-identified gay or queer editors makes for a more welcoming editing environment. Categories also allow new editors to find a community - and yes, technically, a list on a project talk page is good, but again, not that visible or accessible. It can take new users a while to get into the backdrop of WP, and sometimes a while is all it takes for new users to feel like they lack a voice, become disenchanted, and leave. Besides, I find all sorts of neat stuff (relevant and useful to WP) on other users' talk pages, pages I find in user categories. As to Resolute's point about being a Christian/Canadian, it doesn't hold water, as usercats are chosen by the user. If usercats are not relevant to an editor's interests, s/he is under no obligation to use them. ] (]) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (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. | |||
| : Either we allow all such good faith categories, or we delete them all. I would favor deleting them all, including ], ] and ] because they are divisive, and Misplaced Pages is not a social networking site. It's not about us the editors. If editors want to group together, they can form a WikiProject. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Full disclosure: I was involved in ] and ]. I have previous appealled this topic ban at ]. The discussion at ] may also be relevant. | |||
| I find this discussion interesting in light of: Wikipedians by education, Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality, Wikipedians by hardware, Wikipedians by interest, Wikipedians by language, Wikipedians by location, Wikipedians by philosophy, Wikipedians by profession, Wikipedians by religion, Wikipedians by skill, Wikipedians by software | |||
| 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) | |||
| I would like the above editors supportive of deleting sexuality as a cat, come out boldly in favor of, and actually submit dels on all these user cats. Is location relevant, is religion relevant, is skill or software or hardware relevant? Thanks I look forward to seeing massive amounts of cat deletions. Whoo Hooo. Have a great day. ] (]) 15:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Comments by uninvolved editors === | |||
| ====Deletion nomination withdrawn==== | |||
| '''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) | |||
| *I had the mistaken belief that deleting these categories was sort of routine, and nominated based on the recent deletion of very similar categories. Apparently, the act of nominating the category for deletion is far more disruptive and divisive than the category itself. I would have no issue if it were renamed to something that had previously been deleted, because it seems like there is no firm consensus on the topic of user categories. I didn't cherry pick the Gayass Wikipedians category intentionally... Since I had the LGBT project talk page watchlisted, I just happen to notice when it was created as sort of a joke. Clearly this has generated significant ill-will in the community, which was not at all my intent. I have withdrawn the nomination of the category for deletion. <sup>]]</sup> 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I would want to hear from the other involved editors before endorsing a complete lifting of the restriction, but I will suggest limiting the restriction to "race/ethnicity topics involving living people"; that should ensure that Wikidata-related edits do not inadvertently violate a ban. ] (]) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''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 === | ||
| 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. | |||
| Since I left Misplaced Pages, ] has made obviously sincere attempts to explain that he did not intend prejudice, and he's made several gestures of reconciliation, of which withdrawing the deletion nomination was only one. There may have been mutual misunderstanding, but it's more important that there clearly was no malice, as there was none on my part either. I accept his explanations, I thank him for his gestures, I bear him no ill will, and I apologize for whatever degree I was the cause of our misunderstanding. | |||
| 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. | |||
| My frustration with Misplaced Pages has therefore cooled down to just below the boiling point and I am returning. | |||
| 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. | |||
| I would like to very sincerely thank several kind people who spoke decently about gays during the discussion. ] (]) 18:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| One of my alts was created to test for a bug which is now fixed in the upcoming IP Account thingie. | |||
| :I'm glad you're back to stay. Hope to collaborate with you on future projects, ''']]''' 18:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Several times I've created a new account to be sure that something works the way I remember it, in order to help someone else or to take a screenshot (for socials or a blog). WMF improvements have been focused on the onboarding process and branding so there have been a lot of changes over the last 20 years. If you haven't created an alt on en.wiki in the last decade, I doubt it will be as you remember it. Trying to 'reset' an old account has some interesting effects too, but that's another story. | |||
| ::Would either ] or ] please expand a little on the "several gestures of reconciliation" mentioned above? I have been looking around at this issue, and am willing to accept that ] did not anticipate his action would be controversial, but I am still concerned about much of what I have read. That there is homophobia on WP is hard to deny - one only needs to glance up at ]'s comment above for an illustration. And yet, ]'s response has been a defence of himself coupled with comments like "Its ]] unfortunate that a new editor was unable to find a role for himself in this community; it seems as if he is unable to embrace the essence of NPOV. Some people find it impossible to check their personal opinions at the door." Rather than recognising that homophobia is objectionable (whatever the intent of his actions), ] appears to suggest that double standards and bias are something that anyone identifying as Queer simply needs to accept - which is rougly why ] left in the first place. I agree that the withdrawal of the nomination was a positive step, but am concerned that the motivation was to remove controversy over a "disruptive and divisive" category (as ] put it), rather than in recognition that there is a genuine issue of bias here. I am also puzzled that ] has made few edits in the LGBT area (as he notes on the project talk page), but had it watchlisted. Now, of course, he has the right to watch (or edit) any WP page, and it is not my intention to attack here. I just don't want to go away from this discussion without trying to understand what gestures William has seen, and I would much prefer to be able to move on feeling as comfortable about ] as William apparently is now. ] (]) 01:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Some of my alts have a humourous intent, ] is my most longstanding one, and I was setting up several alts for a christmas joke when the issue at ] blew up. I've had positive feedback on my joke alts, most was off-wiki, but see for example ]. | |||
| :::*Sometimes its better to let an issue settle on its own, but apparently that is not to be in this case. My comments regarding Coleman were made when I was pretty upset at the imputation of homophobic or anti-gay motives to my nomination and other actions. My comments were intemperate, but I submit that I was pretty upset at the time. I would echo what I said on his talkpage and here: that it would be unfortunate if Coleman were to be unable to find a role for himself here that he finds acceptable. I'm not sure that active advocacy is an easy role to fill, as it finds somewhat less sympathy than perhaps it deserves in a community focused on public content. At no point did I argue that "Double standards and bias" are something that anyone should accept. I have the LGBT project talk page watchlisted because I asked a question on it about whether Matt Sanchez (]) should be considered as within the LGBT-scope. I don't think he identifies as LGBT, so I wasn't sure if former gay pornographic performers would be considered LGBT. | |||
| ::::* ], I agree that sometimes leaving well alone is the best approach, and I did consider not saying anything - but then decided that that would be unfair to you, as it would mean my (and possibly others) leaving with an impression that may not be warranted. I wanted to understand, and to give you the chance to respond. | |||
| ::::* I understand why you were upset, and recognise that we all act on emotion at times. Indeed, my actions here may well be equally criticised on such a basis. I recall an incident years ago where I was accused of making a homophobic remark, and I still regret that I have never had the chance to apologise for the offence that I caused - even though it arose from a misinterpretation of my comment. My anger at the accusation prevented my seeing how my comment ''could'' be seen from his perspective until later, and I've never had the chance to address his (likely still) negative impression. I am impressed with your actions in seeking your roommate's opinion, which has left you able to do something to address the situation. ] has accepted your explanation (which is great for both of you), but I guess this serves to illustrate that he was not the only one aggrieved. I would encourage you to look at this as an opportunity for reflection on the potential for misinterpretation in written communication when emotions are raised. For example, I saw your comment that he should "check his opinions at the door" as a reference to opinions like '''homophobia is never acceptable''', especially in light of the homophobic comments made elsewhere in this discussion and your description of the category in question as "diisruptive and divisive" - hence my "double standards and bias" comment. Hopefully, this is not what you meant, and on reflection I see that you may have been in fact referring back to the importance of ]. | |||
| ::::* As regards inclusion of the page ] in the LGBT project, I now recall that question being raised, and that makes your watchlisting completely understandable. On that point, I think it should be so included, although I agree that he does not identify as LGBT. The content of the page clearly does have relevance to the LGBT project. FYI, whatever Matt Sanchez's self-identification may be, there are a lot of people in the LGBT community who would view him as a gay or bi based on his actions no matter what he states publicly - and many would also suggest he has internalised homophobia issues. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of the various positions on Matt, I can't see any reason to not include his page as part of the LGBT project. ] (]) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As far as I can tell there are no en.wiki policies against how I use alts . As far as I can tell there are no WMF policies against how I use alts. I'm aware that a number of people appear to be deeply opposed to it, but I've always been unclear why, maybe you'd like to try and explain it? | |||
| :::*As far as withdrawing the nomination - the disruptive and divisive nature of the debate, coupled with the clear fact that consensus on the larger issue has not been achieved, was wholly my reason for withdrawing the nom. At first I was surprised that it was viewed as an attack on WP LGBT editors, but after it blew up a bit I discussed it with my roommate (who is quite emphatically lesbian) and found that from her perspective it was quite a reasonable response. I didn't withdraw it as an attempt to counteract systemic bias, per se, and I counted it unnecessary to argue from my decidedly inexpert opinion over the presence and effect of such bias. It is clear that the issue of categories and userboxes (and etc. other usage of userspace) is something that has to be decided as a single question of purpose. It is exceedingly difficult to resolve the problem case by case, because each separate nomination is seen as an attack on a particular person or group of people - whether it was intended to be or not. I regret that it happened in this case, and you can be sure that I will exercise far more care in any future user category or userbox deletion nominations. <sup>]]</sup> 02:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::* I agree that the issue is best dealt with at a meta-level with a discussion of ''all'' user categories. In retrospect, it might have been much better to use the need for a global discussion and conclusion, rather than a case-by-case approach, as the rationale for the closure here . I certainly was concerned that your use of "controversial and divisive" to describe the category reflected an underlying anti-queer perspective, which is partly why I am now here. FWIW, ], I now think that the context surrounding all of this had led me to an inaccurate perception of you, and so engaging in this dialog has been worthwhile (at least from my perspective). Best, ] (]) 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Update==== | |||
| When I posted the above, I was under a misimpression. The last time I'd seen the Gayass Wikipedians category, ]] had withdrawn his deletion nomination and closed the discussion. I was about to go back to the LGBT group and suggest that we rename the category to "LGBT" or "Queer" or something less inflammatory and much more inclusive to the whole LGBT community. Now I find that someone else reopened it and reclosed it and the category has now been deleted. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is so legalistic that I just spend an hour trying to figure out what happened so I could complain in a rational way. So far, I haven't been able to do that. | |||
| 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) | |||
| For Misplaced Pages at this stage in the discussion to turn around and make a point of denying the LGBT a category (to be suitably renamed) is an unbelievably blatant insult and an outrage. | |||
| :{{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) | |||
| My question now is how -- without becoming a Wikilawyer and spending my whole life on the legalities -- could I and the rest or the GLBT community secure a category with a reasonable name of our own choosing, and then know that it would stay that way for at least a while? | |||
| ::@], 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) | |||
| :::::I think that's hardly adequate per ]. ] (]) 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. ] | ] 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) | |||
| I still appreciate ]]'s efforts at reconciliation, and I still appreciate those others who've tried to help, but my astonishment with Misplaced Pages in general is boundless. ] (]) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::@]: 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">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well said. The TBAN applies to the ''person behind the accounts'' regardless of which account they use. ] (]) 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: And also every single edit Stuartyeates has made since January 2024 is a sockpuppetry violation since several of the alts were blocked then (there are also blocks from earlier but they were username softblocks so can be ignored here), right? ] ] 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art == | |||
| :Thanks. There is a DRV for "Queer Wikipedians" that has a good chance of succeeding. <sup>]]</sup> 20:05, 23 January 2008 (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) | |||
| ::The DRV can be found at ]. ] (]) 01:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :{{nacc}} Even though none of the three accounts seem to be students in a ] affiliate course, you could still try asking about them at ] on the of<s>t</s><u>f</u> chance that one of the Wiki ED advisors that typically help students remembers a username. Otherwise, I don't think there's much to do if there are no serious copyright (images or text) or other policy violations. Generally, users are given a bit of leeway to work on things in their userspace and it's possible these could be good-faith drafts, i.e. not really eligible for speedy deletion per ]. I guess the "draft" that's not already in a user sandbox could be moved to one just to avoid it mistakenly being tagged for speedy deletion per U5, and perhaps welcome templates added each user's user talk page, but (at least at first glance) I'm not seeing a reason why any of these would need to be deleted. -- ] (]) 01:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)<ins>; Post edited. -- 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</ins> | |||
| ::{{nacc}} I've moved the userspace one to draftspace and left a message on that editor's talk page asking if it's for school work, so hopefully they'll be able to give more information. ] (]) 03:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Another one just appeared at ]. ] (]) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The good news is that the few references I checked were real, not LLM hallucinations. Hoping the AI is only used for images, not text. — ] ] 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there any kind of guideline about including AI artwork in articles on here or is it just based on people's feelings in the moment at this point? --] (]) 14:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Escalating blocks versus swift indefinite blocks == | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| One of the things that I find troubling about the current culture of admins and blocking, is the propensity to indefinite block too swiftly. There are some cases where indefinite blocking is definitely required, but there are other cases involving contentious articles and groups of articles, or an editor who is disrupting content but can contribute something, rather than just behaving badly, where I think a different approach would work better. Have a look at this from one of the arbitration pages: <blockquote>"Editors who are disruptive, including but not limited to edit warring, making uncivil remarks and personal attacks, and filing vexatious complaints, may be banned from the affected pages and/or placed on one revert-per-week limitation, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Editors who violate page bans or revert limitations may be blocked for up to one week per violation, with the maximum block increasing to one year after the fifth violation."</blockquote> This may look like excessive bureaucracy, but I think it is a better system than trying to have community discussions on contentious bans. It would be simple to ask the uninvolved admins to record this in the logs, but my main point is that this is a far better way to handle things than the current "indefinite ban if enough admins don't have the patience to give you another chance". It doesn't have to be exactly like that proposal above, but is there ''any'' chance that those admins wanting to have indefinite blocking as the second or third option in their armoury would consider using escalating blocks instead? ] (]) 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that we probably jump to indef too quickly in many cases, but I don't think slowly escalating blocks are the answer. If someone gets warned and/or blocked for something, we assume good faith that they weren't familiar with our rules. They do it a second time and get blocked, we might still assume good faith, they do it ''again'' and I think most people would stop assuming good faith. On a collaborative project, users who constantly piss off other people are a major impediment to a decent work environment. If someone doesn't learn after a couple incidents that things like POV-pushing and incivility are wrong, I see no reason to delay the almost-inevitable and let good users suffer as a result. A topic ban might help some cases, but not always. A topic ban for an SPA is pretty much the same as a regular ban, except it needs people policing the user as we have no technical method to enforce a topic ban. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}: | |||
| :As bears repeating, indefinite does not mean infinite. If the User wants to come back, all they need to do is to explain on their Talk page or in an email to an admin, that they realize that their previous behavior is wrong, and vow to change their ''modus operandi''. <font face="Comic Sans">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me. | |||
| :::The problem with that is that indefinite blocks invariably drive people away rather than promoting reform. People grow up, mature and change, and there is no reason why someone 2-3 years later should be forced to start a new account, or grovel to get their old account unblocked, because of previous indiscretions. Maybe the terminology needs to change? People (especially new users) ''do'' interpret indefinite as permanent (and a months-long block is not set in stone either - people can appeal for that to be shortened). Nice as the ideal is, simply saying "fill in this form saying what you did wrong and say you will be nice and we will unblock" is not a good way to get ''genuine'' reform happening, and it sets admins up as judges of past behaviour. The alternative of "I've unblocked you, be nice or you will be reblocked" is in some ways better, and ''shouldn't be denied because some people prefer the other method.'' Requiring people, on their first or second offence, to write a lengthy essay explaining how they are now a model Wikipedian, is unrealistic. Improvement and reform can only come with experience, and no-one gets that while they are blocked. ] (]) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| ::Slowly escalating blocks implies that the block is being used as a punishment. "This is the third time you broke the rules, your punishment is now a 1 month block". Blocks are NOT PUNISHMENT. While arbcom rulings or community sanctions carry the weight of punishments, and can be enforced by blocks, blocks in and of themselves should not be handled this way, IMHO. If the blocking admin believes that the user needs to be stopped immediately, but can be "talked down" from problematic edits and can be counseled, then anything more than a day or two is just vindictive punishment. If the blocking admin believes that the user shows no signs of ever becoming a productive user, and expects disruption to continue as soon as the block is lifted, then why not make it indefinite; we shouldn't lift a block when we truly believe doing so will cause a disruption. Short blocks get attention and stop ongoing disruption. Indefinite blocks prevent problematic users from continuing to edit. The middle range stuff makes no sense, unless it is something agreed upon as an ArbCom sanction or otherwise, it just makes no sense given the blocking policy. --].].] 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::So why do arbcom limit themselves to one year blocks and propose escalating blocks? The point is that there are cases where the user is (or appears to be) reformed and has productive edits in the past. There are banned users who do appear to have changed and matured, and the system is heavily weighted against them ever getting another chance. ] (]) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because ArbCom does hand down punishments, and it is within their jurisdiction to decide the appropriate length of their punishment. Admins don't punish. We use the blocking tool to prevent vandalism and disruption. Either the user being blocked is expected to change or they are not; the mid-range blocks (like 2 weeks) take neither of those positions into account. --].].] 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Are you sure ArbCom are punishing and not preventing? No blocks should be punishing anyone. By your logic, someone banned for a year should be banned permanently or not at all. I think the real reason for ArbCom not applying indefinite blocks is because they recognise the potential for miscarriages of justice, and recognise that people can change (but now I'm just speculating). The point here is that excessive indefinite blocking will eventually disrupt the encyclopedia by causing the number of new contributors to dwindle - it is a question of getting the balance right. By the way, how does what you said apply to community bans and the "if no admin will unblock, a user is ''de facto'' considered community banned" (even in the absence of discussion) bit? ] (]) 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To be honest I was issuing short blocks to "vandalism accounts" at first (you know, ]), but all (or almost all) the accounts that came back after the block continued to vandalize. An other issue is that these accounts are then autoconfirmed and can start having fun with page move. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 10:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not talking about vandalism accounts here, but do be aware of the need to distinguish experimentation and vandalism. ] (]) 11:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nvm I was away for a few days and I didn't understand the background story behind this thread until now. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 14:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Admins clearly know the difference between a new user fooling around with test edits and someone repeatedly adding "This guy is teh gay" to a biographical article. I fully trust my brother and sister admins to use blocks appropriately in each case, and to know the difference. Misplaced Pages does not suffer fools long, but we do have a lot of patience for newbies. If you have a specific concern about how a specific block was handled, perhaps it would be a good idea to include difs. Before the most recent post, it was hard to tell, as it seemed Carcharoth was asking for general opinions on blocks, and such opinions were being sought apropros of nothing. However, I reiterate that I inherently trust admins to make good judgements about user behavior, unless clearly they show themselves to be untrustworthy... --].].] 16:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You would be surprised how many people experiment by putting "This guy is teh gay" in an article. That's the problem, you see, some people assume that anyone making an edit like that is doing it to get a kick out of it, rather than chosing an inappropriate place and method of experimentation. You used the word "repeated" and that is a key qualifier. What we call vandalism can sometimes just be someone going "hey, is it ''really'' possible that anyone can edit this thing? Wow! Yes, I can. Oops, I just got blocked." Now most people recover from a start like that and can go on to be a good, productive editor, which is why we have warnings. A similar learning process is seen for more "advanced" concepts, such as civility and NPOV and so on. Ideally, all editors would be perfect Wikipedians from the start, but that's not the case. People learn as they edit, and the first block on an issue should be seen as a learning experience. You have to have a clear pattern of failing to learn the <u>'''same'''</u> lesson, not just "lots of blocks, no more patience needed, indefinite block". Does that begin to make more sense? ] (]) 17:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::True, but once someone has been told "Please stop doing that" and then "We really mean it... stop doing that" and then "Really, you will be blocked if you do it again" and then they are really blocked for 24 hours, and then they come back from the block and make the same edit again, and are blocked for 24 hours again, and then come back and say "Fuck all admins I will do what I want." I inherently trust ALL admins to treat that case differently than someone who makes a joke or test edit a few times, and then says "sorry guys, I was just screwing around. I will be good in the future". And, when an admin says "lots of blocks, no more patience, indefinite block", why do we assume the admin is lazy and has not investigated further. I trust my fellow admins to make good judgement on these issues. Admins don't just look at the number of blocks, they look at the reasons for the blocks, the contribs history, and lots of other factors before asigning an indefinite block. If you have a specific case that needs review, that would help. Otherwise, I will reiterate: Admins know how and when to block indefinitly, and are doing so by and large in a reasonable manner. (edit conflict) --].].] 17:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Actually, a month-long block in the hopeless cases (usually those who would have lost interest anyway if they had been reverted and ignored) will usually result in a dead account that the user doesn't return to. Same effect as an indefinite block. The users that really want to contribute tend to come back after the month is up, and some of those change and improve. ] (]) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Likewise, an indef blocked user can use the unblock template to explain their case. A good mea culpa gets unblocked most of the time. A determined vandal can wait out the month and be a pain in the ass again when it expires. As I said before, if the blocking admin feels in their heart that the user is not going to be a vandal anymore, anything more than a day or two is eggregious. If the admin believes the vandal has no interest in reforming, what is the point in letting them vandalise every two weeks or every month. If you really believe that they will vandalize as soon as the block expires, why let it expire? --].].] 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Though there are cases where an admin does feel in their heart that someone could contribute, but other admins are just as adamant that the user should remain blocked indefinitely. Those are the difficult cases. ] (]) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) As for examples, it would help if it was possible to list indefinite blocks separately from other blocks. That way we really could see if the proportion of indefinite blocks, as compared to other blocks, has increased or decreased over time. ] (]) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That's actually a good idea. If we are to learn to be better admins, some data may be informative... --].].] 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Maybe someone will rustle up some stats? ] (]) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}} | |||
| ===Additional point=== | |||
| ] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I just noticed this point from Redvers: <blockquote>"And admins are guilty here too, blocking on an AIV report without researching deeply - as I find often as I come back from checking edits, find "good faith but misjudged" all over them and '''an indef block applied'''. I used to complain (off-wiki, for the sake of non-drama), until I got a reply containing the words "Mind your own business". So now I don't bother at all. But I don't see how the 'pedia is being improved through all this, I really don't." - ] (my emphasis) </blockquote> I'm going to ask him to comment further here. ] (]) 12:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. — ] ] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠]♠ ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block. == | |||
| Hi y'all! Yes, this was said in relation to the use of automated editing tools. Frequently - as in at least once every time I clear out AIV (two or three times a week?) - I find this pattern: | |||
| See ]. | |||
| #User:Newbie edits ], adding "can I reeely edit here?" | |||
| 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. | |||
| #User:TwinkleAlice reverts, and warns User:Newbie. No welcome message, and uw-vand, not uw-test used. | |||
| #User:Newbie edits ], changing something minor ("Mr" to "mister", say) but making the article a bit worse. | |||
| #User:TwinkleBob reverts, and warns uw-vand2. | |||
| #User:Newbie edits ], reordering a sentence and making some good, some bad changes. | |||
| #User:TwinkleCharles reverts, and, perhaps seeing the two warnings, warns with BV | |||
| #User:TwinkleCharles places a report on AIV | |||
| #User:Admin blocks User:Newbie indef. | |||
| 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. | |||
| User:Newbie's total career on Misplaced Pages: under 10 minutes. | |||
| 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) | |||
| There are variants on this, including shortcircuiting at point 4, with TwinkleBob BV-ing, reporting to AIV and User:Admin indeffing all within seconds. | |||
| : 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) | |||
| Some of this problem is due to newer admins having come up through the Misplaced Pages-as-a-roleplaying-game route and still playing the game. Some of this is because admins AGF of the person reporting the "vandal" - especially when AIV is backlogged, it's easier to assume that the reporter is right, double check the last edit and that there's a BV warning, not check the time and block indef. | |||
| ::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. | |||
| ::::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) | |||
| Now, I don't argue with blocking indef - it should exist, it should be used, it is much more often used correctly than it is used incorrectly. My beef is with it being used for non-blatant vandalism - what we used to call "testing", and the incorrect identification of tests by editors using automated tools. That we as admins are facilitating these bad warnings by blocking on little or no evidence is a symptom of a problem, not a problem in itself. ➔ ''']''' with my innocent hand on my heart 13:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::@], that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: ] and ]. -- ] (]) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Good points. Here are a couple reports I just checked out at ]: | |||
| :::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) | |||
| :: {{IPvandal|68.2.156.53}} - apparently, this user's offenses include replacing "horn" with "French horn". Is that vandalism? No, that's just someone who's perhaps unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages terminology or the discussions that have been done regarding the accepted terminology of a ]. Content disputes are not vandalism. | |||
| :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. | |||
| :: {{vandal|Canccono}} - created an article named "If u know me good for ur face u butt head and BTW KILL (someone's name omitted)", vandalized {{la|Thyroid}}, and other edits seem to indicate a vandal-only account. I was considering a block for being a vandal-only account, but he hadn't been properly warned, so {{admin|AndonicO}} gave the correct warning. | |||
| :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) | |||
| : I think Redvers is correct in that people often give quick warnings with Twinkle and make quick reports to ] without fully investigating the situation. Maybe some of these people are users who really want to become admins, so they hope to increase their chances by calling themselves "vandal fighters". I don't know what it would take to change this culture, though. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 23 January 2008 (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) | |||
| ::I'm quite disturbed by this as well; I've left notes on dozens of users' talk pages that they should check the times on the last warning, and the last vandalism before reporting, but only a few really follow the advice. Perhaps we need as Gurch puts it. · ] <sup>]</sup> 16:28, 23 January 2008 (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) | |||
| :::all of this is a reason why usually a informal statement saying "enough of this. stop now, or I can and will block you" seems to work well for many types of people playing with WP. I have never had a school-type guy continue after something like that, & I often actually get an apology. ''']''' (]) 02:31, 24 January 2008 (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) | |||
| Here's an interesting (related) point, from editors recently talking on ]: | |||
| ::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) | |||
| {{cquote2|quotetext=It's been a while since I reported a vandal, and was amazed to see the new info box which apparently indicates a new "soft" stance against vandalism. I now have to spell out exactly what the vandal did to get it taken care of? Things that were once considered vandalism no longer are? My God, COME ON! We editors fight this crap ongoingly, and the best defense we had was swift and decisive action by admins against vandalism. If this is no longer the case, I will have to think very carefully about if I want to continue helping to keep Misplaced Pages clean and accurate. IP editors who are basically untouchable continually vandalize these articles without any requirement to register. If I had my way, you would have to register to edit to begin with. If my take on this is true, you are going to begin losing a lot of diligent editors as time passes. Many of us already feel like we are at the breaking point.}} | |||
| :::My user talk is hardly not public. ] (]) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A small chorus of agreement from other "vandalfighters" follows - ''"I totally agree with all of the above..."'' ''"Yes can common sense please prevail"''. Now this is Not A Good Thing - editors arguing they shouldn't have to "spell out exactly what the vandal did to get it taken care of". One goes as far to say ''"I myself am fighting to keep pages free of vandalism but i simply cant do it forever! And as soon as i leave these pages are going to become full of vandalism/false information again"''. | |||
| ::::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.... ―] <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'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. ―] <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">[]]</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) | |||
| So "vandal fighters" are threatening to leave unless we (admins) get the same hair-trigger as them. This suggest there are people here who ''only'' fight vandals and they're burning out. Would I be incivil if I suggested that these people try something else instead? I don't know what. Perhaps writing an encyclopedia? Is that too crazy? ➔ ''']''' with my innocent hand on my heart 09:07, 24 January 2008 (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) | |||
| == Editing or removing another editor's comments from a talk page == | |||
| *: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 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. ...{{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">[]]</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. — ] ] 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">[]]</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) | |||
| I for a third opinion regarding an incident at ] where my attempts at civil discussion were classified as ] by ] and removed from the talk page. A third opinion was by ] who suggested that the matter of the deleted text be brought before a sysop and that the disagreement about the article's title and content be brought before ] or ]. I have lost any desire to edit this article based on the treatment I received from ] and ], but I would still like to see an admin weigh in on the issue of the deleted text. Please note that ] added the <nowiki>{{notaforum}}</nowiki> after I objected to the removal of the comments. ] (]) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove | |||
| :::::::::::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) | |||
| :Even if one's comments may be most appropriate for a forum, it's (in my opinion) absolutely improper and incorrect to remove another's comments from an article's talk page. If you believe one is using an article's talk page as a forum then kindly bring it up on the user's talk page. Removing the comments from the article's talk page is wrong. ] (]) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I realize that's for "accounts you control" but clearly there's some intention here that we need to consult with the blocking admin in general. ] (]) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless there is real incivility or libelous material, or over the top stuff, user comments on talk page should be left, IMHO. A REAL quick scan of the edits don't look that bad/harmful ect so I would leave, but I didn't dig too deep. This is also after I have had to remove a bunch of stuff from some talk pages so I guess..."It depends" Anyways, --] 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. ] (]) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. ] (]) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. ] (]) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) ] (]) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::{{reply|331dot}} as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and ''re''blocked them, ''that'' would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. ]'']''] 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. ] (]) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *On a related note, I think we need to sit down with ] and ] and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs ''trying to do volunteer work'' seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *"we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.{{pb}}There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Misplaced Pages for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —] 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I vandalized Misplaced Pages with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Misplaced Pages because some grace was offered to them when'' they'' were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that , because who just ''knows'' wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? ''Very suspicious''. | |||
| *:"They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the ''possibility'' to become one. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::There's a difference between vandalizing Misplaced Pages for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point {{u|Cryptic}} refers to). ] (]) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{ec}}As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —] 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to ]'s collections of your bad judgement? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. ] (]) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I fail to see how {{tq|"331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined"}} is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged <s>would</s> could be over-pinging. ] (]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::]: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. ] (]) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::@] @]. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. ] (]) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. ] ] 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). ] (]) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- ] (]) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once ] style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would ], rendering my point somewhat moot. ] (]) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::{{tq|I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor}} me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- ] (]) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. ] (]) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *: {{tq| But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so}}. I present {{u|JohnCWiesenthal}} as a counterexample. {{pb}} Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. ] ] 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at {{no redirect|IntelliStar}} which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. ] (]) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; {{tq|Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems}} is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For ''advertising'' of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. ] (]) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at ]. ] ] 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking === | |||
| Everyone, unless restricted by an arb ruling, may participate in the article talk page. Removing comments of others, or changing them is disruption. I gave a final warning. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was ], exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. ] (]) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. ] (]) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. ] (]) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. ] (]) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- ] (]) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by ] and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- ] (]) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. ] ] 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. {{tq|I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others.}} -- ] (]) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Or, better, {{tq|My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question.}} -- ] (]) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::@] probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially {{tq|"The specifics of the example isn't the point,..."}}. ] (]) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tq|if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here}} - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a ''long'' time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- ] (]) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic <s>]</s> ]. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per ] and remaining ]. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Misplaced Pages as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. ] (]) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Looking through 331dot declining unblocks reveals quite a few instances where either 331dot or the blocking admin takes an extremely newbie-unfriendly approach: | |||
| :I direct Rlevse's attention to ]: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: ... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." I also direct Rlevse's attention to ]: "This is not a forum for general discussion of . Any such messages will be deleted." I would suggest that Rlevse's "final warning" is in error. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *] has now been unblocked by Philknight, but the approach by 331dot was not very helpful or newbie-friendly | |||
| ::What Hrafn says is correct. Our talk pages are not forums for off-topic jabber. Talk pages for ] and other articles like it (which tend to attract much disinformation, and about which people may hold strange, unreal ideas) tend to attract lots of off-topic discussion. It's not the job of the people keeping up these articles to debunk every crackpot that comes along; if they want to delete what's not related to the article at hand, they are most certainly allowed to do so. ] (]) 03:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *]: no warnings, immediate indef block by ] for a misguided edit (not vandalism, just auto-promo): no idea why a warning wasn't tried first | |||
| *], no warning, immediate indef block by ], reasonable unblock request, denied by 331dot. This is the apparently unforgiveable, no warnings needed edit. | |||
| *], I can understand their frustration, I don't see the "blatant spam" they were posting, they were posting references with relevant information, but these included commercial websites as well as neutral ones. I don't see any company they tried to promote, no spam text, ... just a helpful editor who hasn't yet given up on editing here despite a way too harsh block by ] and an unhelpful unblock decline by 331dot | |||
| *] incorrect sock block, unblocked thanks to PhilKnight, but previous interactions with 331dot, including a declined unblock, were again rather unhelpful, just blindly believing that the block has to be correct | |||
| These are all from this month, from spotchecking some of their declined unblocks (a number of other declines were perfectly allright). ] (]) 10:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I commented there. See that talk page. Raul, the danger therein re what you're saying is who defines what is off topic and is it really off topic. Unless the issue is getting out of hand, I feel it's better to just leave it there, otherwise you'd likely start another unneeded dispute. The template Hrafn points to is for "large amounts of" discusion. Here, we're talking about one short edit. As for W:TALK, very few edits will qualify for it. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That's the same problem we have with everything on this project, and the answer is ]. It's usually clear when a lone crackpot is relentlessly on a soapbox, and we should feel free to remove such comments. If other users think the topic is legitimately important to the article, they should certainly feel free to restore the material. ] '']'' 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Incidentally, I find it useful to put such comments under a {{tl|hat}} with the caption "Off-topic discussion about ." Contentious editors are more likely to accept archiving than outright removal, and it spurs the talk page away from feeding the trolls. ] '']'' 00:35, 23 January 2008 (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? — ] ] 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I tend to do that in threads involving several editors going off-topic. When the thread involves only one editor I prefer to 'userfy' the thread to the user in question's talkpage, which is fairly standard practice on such pages, and is what I did on this occasion. I only delete ''outright'' obvious nonsense and blatant trolling. <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 02:57, 23 January 2008 (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) | |||
| ::@] 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. ] | ] 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 — ] ] 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. — ] ] 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) | |||
| ::::Would it be too much to ask for some sysops to review the deleted material and ]'s demeanor on the talk page to determine if this was a simple case of a well-meaning editor removing the outright nonsense of a troll? ] (]) 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove | |||
| 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) | |||
| :::::Read more carefully: I "'userf' the thread to the user in question's talkpage", I ''did not'' "delete ''outright''". Therefore I was not inferring that your comments were "the outright nonsense of a troll" (merely that it was an impermissible "general conversation" on the topic of 'the politicisation of science'). <font face="Antiqua, serif">]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></font> 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There are no deleted contributions. — ] (]) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems like an essay directed more toward society than the article. We're not a forum for such things. Try to make comments that directly relate to problems you perceive in the article. Talk pages are solely for the improvement of articles, not society. My own preference would have been to place it under a hat, but userfication is also valid here, I think. ] '']'' 06:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- ] (]) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically {{tq|someone making a living by backlinking a website for a client}}and not just someone who is ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Misplaced Pages's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. ] ] 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. ] (]) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. ] (] · ]) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ] (]) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. ] (] · ]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check ''every subsequent edit'' manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? ] (]) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. ] (] · ]) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@], I think that's exactly the sort of thing @] is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he ''shouldn't'' be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- ] (]) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. ] (] · ]) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. ] | ] 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==== | |||
| == Current Arbcom with fairly broad implications == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| Hi folks, ] has issues within it on editor behaviour which go past the original brief and may affect other areas of wikipedia. I have thrown up a suggestion ] in the workshop which would have broader implications and I encourage people to read (if you can't get the context have a browse through the rest of it if you have time). cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : |
::Thanks, but the same happens with other editors as well. ], warned on 11 December, one edit (not constructive but not problematic either) to their own user page the same day, suddenly blocked a week later? Nothing in the filter log, no deleted pages. If it was a sock, an indication in the block log would help. ] (]) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::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. ] | ] 12:38, 19 December 2024 (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) | |||
| == WP:SNO closing at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wilcher == | |||
| *:That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. ] | ] 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. ] (]) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @], could you please have another look at this block? – ] 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::@] (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. ] | ] 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"> ‥ </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) | |||
| It would be a ] if I performed the ] at ], but it is getting might blustery.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 07:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm thinking the discussion should go for a little while longer. It might actually spur some discussion about the notability of athletes' biographies. If the nominator changes his mind later, or if there's a slew of "keep" votes after another day and no "delete" votes, then the snowball clause would be appropriate. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Examples: 331dot==== | |||
| == The Rogue Penguin == | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| The Rogue Penguin is refusing to allow an addition to the article ] . | |||
| *:"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) | |||
| The addition deals with the thought that the mysterious Shinigami that appears in the ''Death Note'' director's cut special could be Light Yagami. | |||
| *::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) | |||
| The modification I have been attempting to make is one stating that there is speculation that the Shinigami may be Light Yagami. | |||
| *:::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) | |||
| This does not imply that the Shinigami IS Light, it merely states that there are those who think it that he is, or may, be Light. | |||
| *::::Please tell me what the acceptable level of mistakes is so I know never to make too many. I never said anyone wasn't sincere. I didn't have access to all the information. You are assigning motives to me that I simply don't have and I don't know why you, a former admin, have it out for me. Merry Christmas. ] (]) 10:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::@] Please familiarize yourself with ]. ] (]) 16:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I am very familiar with it, thank you. ] (]) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I wasn't rude. I categorically, totally, in the strongest terms, reject that claim. ] (]) 10:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Okay, let's leave the rudeness matter to the side for a while. Tone is hard to convey on the internet. Let's also not accuse other editors of having it out for anybody, because when in the history of Misplaced Pages has that ever gone well?{{pb}}Just to try and steer things back on course, @], could you explain why you chose not to accept the unblock requests I posted a few days ago? And the others that Fram posted? I think understanding what your reasoning was when declining these unblocks, especially those of users such as Pbnjb1 and Cwootten13, will be useful for everybody. Mistakes are fine, but, and as an admin who monitors the unblock queue, you know this better than most, what other people want to see is genuine reflection and understanding. What went wrong in these, and what's going to happen differently next time? ] (]) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I'm sorry but it's hard to be told I'm doing things that I'm not doing. | |||
| *::::::* The user said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices. I would like to continue editing Misplaced Pages and request to be unblocked." They said they hadn't reviewed policies yet, and they didn't say what edits they wished to make, both of which would indicate their understanding of the reasons for the block. Quite often people say they understand when they actually don't. Yes, blocks are cheap, but trying to avoid repeat blocks is good both for the appellant and us. Nothing nefarious, nothing rude. Happy to hear what specifically I should have done differently. | |||
| *::::::* I said "If you lose track of which account you are using, you should stick to a single account." I didn't say it was an inappropriate use. They also incorrectly said a personal attack was made against them. | |||
| *::::::I'm happy to discuss other things with you but I fear drawing this discussion out more than it already is. ] (]) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Okay. Here we go. | |||
| *:::::::You selectively quoted Pbnjb1 there - which, I mean, I selectively quoted you so I can't get too mad. But they also wrote {{tq|I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.}} | |||
| *:::::::They very obviously demonstrated that they understood the relevant policies and had read them. How much clearer did you want them to be....? Please, elaborate | |||
| *:::::::Additionally, I don't think anybody who has seen that block has understood why it was made, because we don't do instant 4im warnings and indefs for newbies adding redcats. I don't know why you've expecting a new user to have to have understood something seasoned admins and editors are scratching their heads over. I concur with you about repeat blocks- they're bad for everybody's moral. But accusing other users of not having read policies <em>when they tell you information they could have only learnt by reading the policy?</em> I don't know what to say here. | |||
| *:::::::For the next decline- you selectively quoted yourself. {{tq|this makes it seem like you are multiple people}}. That's inappropriate use. You did accuse them of inappropriately using multiple accounts. Again, I don't know what to say. ] (]) 11:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::Well, they said they read it and then said they didn't- what should I believe? A contradiction would suggest they didn't- but okay, I screwed up. | |||
| *::::::::I was trying to tell them why people ''thought'' they were using them inappropriately. I guess I failed at that. ] (]) 11:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::"{{tq|then said they didn't}}" Please, back this up with a quote, because they didn't say they hadn't read the policies and guidelines. They said they would look at the Teahouse to get a better understanding. There was no contradiction. They demonstrated an understanding of the policies in the areas they'd been making mistakes in, and said they would ask for help in areas they didn't understand yet. But, because that was in the past, let's say you came across the exact same situation today. What would you do? | |||
| *:::::::::I'll come back to the Cwooten13 block at a later date, just so we don't start spiraling off out of control. ] (]) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::They said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Misplaced Pages polices"- which would suggest they hadn't yet. ] (]) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::....no? A better understanding != hasn't read something yet. In fact, the use of the comparative adjective "better" implies that they did read it, and they did understand it. Maybe not completely, but very few people understand our policies and guidelines completely, and especially not when they are a bran-new editor. | |||
| *:::::::::::And you didn't answer my question. Let's say you see that exact same situation again. What would you do? 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::I would unblock them. I think this was just a difference in wording interpretation- which I'm happy to correct when pointed out to me. ] (]) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::So, an editor is incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry, protests his innocence, and you simply dismiss his protests without any indication why. They then point to their record of good contributions, and you again dismiss this completely and reassert that they were editing maliciously, but you weren't rude? "I didn't have access to all the information." In the first of these two blocks, you did have access to all the information, but still denied the unblock and called it blatant spam. In the second case, you didn't have all the information, but still proceeded to completely reject any possibility that the editor was right and summarily dismissed them. The issue is not "the acceptable level of mistakes" but what you do when those mistakes are pointed out. ] (]) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I can't do anything about mistakes if you don't tell me what they are. I'm always willing to change and adjust. I've never denied this. ] (]) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::??? Seriously? Perhaps reread this whole discussion top to bottom, it lists enough of your mistakes. Or if that's too much to ask, just reread my messages from today. ] (]) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I mean before now. "Hey, 331dot, just a friendly question asking why you did X thing when I noticed Y thing was the case". ] (]) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::So no actual reply to my post then. You claim to be willing to change and adjust, but give no indication that you understand what you did wrong. ] (]) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::"They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment." I did, but unsurprisingly many socks deny being socks. Do I get that wrong sometimes? Yes. ] (]) 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::The editor involved (nor anyone else) had any indication that you took their unblock request and explanation in any way serious, you gave no explanation at all, leaving the editor rather desperate: "Please, could you explain to me how this conclusion has been reached?", no answer. ] (]) 12:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::I have other things to do, and by the time I noticed that, someone else(a checkuser) had already engaged with them. I didn't want to pile on especially whem someone with more information was interacting with them. ] (]) 12:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::But it should never have come to that in the first place, if you had at the very least explained your reasons for not believing them at all in either your unblock decline or in your follow-up at the latest. ] (]) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. ] (]) 12:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::This is actually quite illustrative. We have a situation where several people are telling you that you made mistakes and they're discussing what should be done. This seems to have come almost out of nowhere and you wish you had been given a heads up before it came to this. You're not sure exactly why it is that they're approaching things this way, and even though you're expressing that you're acting in good faith, it feels like there's nothing you can say that would satisfy them. If you're getting frustrated, that's an entirely understandable response and I don't blame you. Imagine the frustration when you're told that {{tq|I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you.}} doesn't cut it and your appeal is denied. ] (]) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::I see what you're trying to do here. I get it. You say it "doesn't cut it" but don't tell me why. I do tell people why or at least attempt to. We all see things differently and have different perspectives, so maybe I don't always succeed. But I try. I'm not the perfect admin certain people seem to want me to be. But turn it around and try to see what I'm saying. I'm not acting nefariously, I'm not a terrible person. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::::::::::I don't believe you intend to cause harm. I've never done unblocking (obviously), and I imagine it's one of the more difficult admin tasks. My point is that there are parallels in terms of asking for assumptions of good faith, only that the newer editors don't always know how to express that. My suggestion, acknowledging again I've only been involved as an observer? Once a blocked editor tries to express good faith, the community as a whole should be more willing to help them express that. This is a ultimately a systematic problem. ] (]) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::::::::::I agree with that, but that means ''more'' discussion, not less, and this thread was created because of a perception that "several admins" were "just standing by interrogating a user". It's my personal opinion, from handling and watching these over the past couple months, that repeated, snap declines are much more harmful than these longer conversations. -- ] (]) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Since this has devolved into focusing on single administrator's actions, I will ask that you either split this into a new discussion, move this to that admin's talk page, or collapse it as not to distract from what was supposed to be a broader discussion. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I've turned it into subsections ] (]) 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:: should probably be moved into relevant subsection. ] (]) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This makes me curious, probably a good fit for the idea lab for further workshopping, but would it be an interesting idea to have a board specifically for ] questions? From what I've seen, asking on the talk page of the editor or the admin themselves gives pretty low visibility to the question and often isn't conducive to further discussion, or sometimes to getting a clear answer at all, while something like AN or ANI might be too direct or accusatory for a simple question. ] (] · ]) 12:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Perhaps the scope of ] could be expanded to include such questions? ] (]) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::It could be, although AARV carries the presumption that the action was incorrect and should be up to debate to endorse/overturn, rather than a centralized place to simply ask ] questions with more transparency than the admin's talk page (where things like ] apply). ] (] · ]) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It's difficult to see how other admins deal with unblock requests, as only open requests are easily findable. Looking at the open requests, I see | |||
| The statement that there are those who think the Shinigami to be Light is a FACT. There are many arguments over whether or not he may be, but the arguments ARE existent and should not be ignored. | |||
| ], 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) | |||
| This can be seen in the past modifications of the article and in a few outside sources as well: | |||
| :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) | |||
| ::Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? ] (]) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. ] (]) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, I don't really understand under what circumstances that could be true, but I guess I have to accept it. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] (and others), it is not a UTRS ticket, it is a ] ticket (presumably a ] ticket). People who are given access to the queue sign the ] (which is the same NDA signed by editors with CUOS). Best, <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :@] I'm genuinely curious. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the ticket showed definitive evidence of UPE (because in my estimation as someone who can see the ticket, it did), do you think this is still a bad block in the way you have concerns about other spam blocks where the editor has stopped editing? I didn't become an admin to block people (I am a bit abashed I'm up to 175 blocks in my ~5 years as an admin) but I am closely following this discussion to get my own sense of community consensus about these matters. Best, ] (]) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::If the UPE is about the deleted article, then yes, I consider it a bad block. If there is more to it, which doesn't show up in the edits, log, and filter log, then it may of course be a perfectly acceptable block. But there is, as far as I know, no reason to automatically give an indef block for UPE instead of warning editors, certainly when like here they have made many other edits which seem uncontroversial, and when the paid editing is months in the past and not repeated after the article was deleted. ] (]) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. ] (]) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|331dot}} it turns out you were perfectly correct with this block, and at the same time not allowed by policy to convincingly explain it, which must be frustrating. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to the others who took a look at this one. I'll not bother you about similar ticket-based blocks in the future, as it is clear that I can't independently assess them, the one example I used was a perfect block, and you may not explain it in any detail anyway. ] (]) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == Request for closure review == | |||
| The Rogue Penguin has decided to ignore this fact stating: | |||
| "it would be unsourced speculation" | |||
| I would be grateful for a review of the decision to close the discussion at ] in favour of merging the article ] into ]". | |||
| Speculation is a theory that is not (or very lightly) supported by evidence. Siting speculation with a 'credible source' would be almost impossible as the entire idea of speculation is that it is not credible. | |||
| 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 . | |||
| The fact is, many people THINK that the Shinigami is (or may) be Light. The fact that it is a thought that is shared by a generally wide community would be reason enough to include it in the article '''while making sure to state that it is only speculation''' so as to let the reader know that there are people who believe it to be true, and it adds another way of looking at the ending scene which generates healthy discussion (as can be seen in the outside links above). | |||
| I subsequently with Compassionate727 who declined to revise their decision (entirely within their rights). | |||
| To ignore an idea out of arrogance is foolish. | |||
| 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: | |||
| ] (]) 08:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I think the verdict that there was a "rough consensus to merge" is questionable. | |||
| :No, he is following policy, ] in particular. - ] 08:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * 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) | |||
| Would a mention of the quote (using the source ) be acceptable if it carried no opinion? Then it would just be additional information, no speculation involved. | |||
| :'''Endorse''': The sources added after the merge proposal opened are all about the book. The notability of the book cannot be inherited by the short story. Until there are several independent, reliable sources that establish the story is notable, this should be merged. The due weight issue can be resolved by cutting out the extensive plot summary and summarizing the reviews within the broader context of the book itself. Why not work on getting the book article completed instead of myopically focusing on one short story? ] (]/]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Overturn and Reopen'''. There's no consensus to do ''anything'' there, let alone merge. ] 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Just commenting, because I didn't receive the expected notification, that I am aware of this discussion. I may respond in substance later. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <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;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn and reopen''' per my original reasoning as mentioned above (I didn't get a ping though) and strongly echoing Black Kite. ] (]) 22:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Overturn'''. I don't believe this discussion has meaningful consensus, and as someone who works on literary topics it is a somewhat frustrating discussion to read. First, the story is notable: Stephen King is a literary giant, and therefore his publications meet ] No. 5. Second, the notability is somewhat secondary; the real question for a merge discussion is whether a standalone page is appropriate. We routinely treat notable topics as part of a larger coherent article because that serves a reader better, and sometimes because that is how the sources treat them. The questions that needed to be answered are whether there is sufficient content to justify a standalone page, and whether a merger would create due weight issues. At a brief glance the answers to those questions are "yes" and "yes", but more to the point, those questions weren't examined in any depth. Honestly, I think this is a borderline case where either outcome could be made work with good editing (the collection article could be expanded, such that a merger wouldn't swamp it). Finally, the discussion had four participants, evenly split on the question. Absent a reason to completely discard one set of opinions - and I don't see such a reason - I don't see grounds to close this with consensus in favor of anything. ] (]) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to ] == | |||
| ] (]) 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| REASON: It's directly mentioned in the article thus it's already immediately obvious. And because it uses characters outside the BMP, I can't create it myself so... ] (I ], ]) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It would appear plausible that TV.com is a reliable source for a synopsis of an episode. I am not myself familiar with that site. The main question to ask is, are these synopsis writen by the staff at tv.com, or are they submitted by any member of the general public. The fact that a page happens to allow additional forum comments isn't relevant, imho, to what other content the page may contain. Many reliable source bloggers allow comments and yet they are experts in their fields and may be cited as such. If you and the other editors have further comments, it would be judicious to take them to either the Talk page at ] or the ]. Thanks, and have a great day. ] (]) 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :] already exists. Not sure about the dot in front of it? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::From the article. <blockquote>There are no separate uppercase or lowercase letters as in the Latin script; instead of using capitalization to mark proper nouns, a "namer-dot" (·) is placed before a name. Sentences are typically not started with a namer-dot, unless it is otherwise called for. All other punctuation and word spacing is similar to conventional orthography.</blockquote> Seems appropriate for the forced capitalization of the wikipedia article, but I could see that going either way.] (]) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *]? Sure. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Done. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thanks ] (I ], ]) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Call for decisive admins to clear backlog == | |||
| ::TV.com show info is almost entirely user-submitted. It's not a reliable source. — ] (] | ]) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| So, there have been persistent backlogs at ]. I had not worked the area in a while, and I assumed it was simply so understaffed that appeals weren't even being looked at. What I have found instead is that, in quite a number of cases, between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the ''exact'' edits they would make. I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock. | |||
| == The vandalism of 99.237.253.131 (aka HinduMuslim) == | |||
| 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. | |||
| I think the article of ] should be block because ] (or aka ] and ]) has always attacked my in my Talk Page because I've only added sources of Indian Gov., CIA, U.S. Department of States, etc...all were showed the common estimates of Muslim population in India as 148 million or 13.4% (please look at its history and here is his attacks: | |||
| 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. | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#Islam_in_India | |||
| 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) | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Angelo_De_La_Paz#India_holding_2nd_Largest_Muslim_population_in_World | |||
| :I'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with that characterization more. In some cases (and you didn't name me but you clearly include me) I have already reviewed and I'm not supposed to review again. I also have other things to do. And sometimes I forget. Nothing nefarious like its being made out to be. And yes, I don't want people to post here saying "that 331dot's wasting our time unblocking all these people who shouldn't be!". Is that so unreasonable? | |||
| :AGF does not mean accepting things on blind faith. ]; ]. ] (]) 22:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't believe I said or implied it was anything nefarious, as I don't think it is. I don't agree with the prolonged quizzes and goalpost moving I'm seeing in some of these requests, that's true, and sure, some of that is you but it isn't just you. It seems to me that we have an issue here exactly because too few admins are working in this area, and that group has developed their own version of "how it's supposed to work" that I do not think jives with what the community expects. ] ] 01:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::What the community expects, or what you expect? | |||
| :::I'm not being disagreeable here. You and I have been around a long time and I think it's safe to say we've seen a lot of blocks and unblocks happen, and many discussed here and elsewhere. In my estimation, there's no consensus on how unblocking should be treated, because it's relying on admin discretion on a case by case basis. And questioning the blocked user to get more info - rather than ignoring and leaving them blocked! - was always seen as more merciful and giving the opportunity for AGF. We always have said that we as a community believe in the opportunity for redemption here. But not at the expense of disruption to the project. (See also ], especially the first line.) | |||
| :::All that said, concerning one of your comments, if an admin is going on vacation, a wiki-break, or whatever, then out of courtesy, they should note here that they are dropping certain tasks (like an unblock review) so that there is less confusion, and someone else can pick up the ball. - <b>]</b> 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I do second the request for help, though. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 22:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| And he is staring to vandalize some Chinese or Buddhist related article such as ], ],], ]. | |||
| :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) | |||
| Thank you so much! | |||
| * 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) | |||
| ] (]) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (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) | |||
| :I've blocked the IP as noted at ], but will not block the other users immediately, without more evidence. Anyone? ] (]) 21:34, 23 January 2008 (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">[]]</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) | |||
| == Removal of 3RR warning by ] == | |||
| :I have little to offer here, except to say that decisiveness is a virtue only if the decider is right. In itself it is very overrated. I wish that people, especially politicians, would be more honest and say "I don't know" much more often. ] (]) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Self-requested RM relist review == | |||
| {{User|Appletrees}} has removed my <nowiki>{{3RR}}</nowiki> warning from ], accusing me of "deliberate factual errors" . | |||
| {{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 == | |||
| For the record, the warned user {{User|75.7.8.176}} reverted 2 times in the last 24 hours in ], and 3 times in the last 48 hours (+ 2 min.), as follows... | |||
| * (75.7.8.176) — added "''or East Sea''" | |||
| * (75.7.8.176) — added "''(East Sea)''" | |||
| * (75.7.8.176) — added "''(East Sea)''", etc. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Appletrees is an involved party in the revert wars, as his following edit seems to show... | |||
| :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) | |||
| * (Appletrees) — added "''and is often refered to as East Sea''", etc. | |||
| ::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) | |||
| :::::{{re|Serial Number 54129|Vanamonde93|Daniel}} Thank you all for the insight on this. I've just always operated under the assumption/understanding that relists were for another full 7 day cycle as if the AfD was just (re-)posted. I'll adjust accordingly. Thank you! ] <sup>]</sup> 00:44, 25 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. — ] <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. – ] <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. – ] <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 == | |||
| Please verify if my warning to the anon. user was warranted, and restore the warning if appropriate. I appoligize in advance if I was in error. Thank you very much.--] (]) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive top|I have indefinitely blocked Light show for this latest knowing violation of their topic ban, as noted in the discussion below. – ] <small>(])</small> 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Appletress has no right to remove warnings from other people's pages. If the IP address in question contests the warning you have given, let them do it. --].].] 18:58, 23 January 2008 (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. | |||
| *<small>] informed of this topic. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| 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}} == | |||
| :I knew it you would do this kind of thing without notifying me per your contribution history. Well, the warning is not warranted because you, ] falsely accused the anon who reverted 3 times within 48hours is not in danger of the 3rr violation. The policy clearly is effective in '''24 hours''' not '''48 hours'''. That is not a good-faith edit and your warning is regarded as an offensive insult for the anon. You're the main '''involved party''' on edit warring with the other party. You can't accuse anyone by your "own" standard. | |||
| {{atop|Sulan114 is not eligible to file this petition. --] (]) 23:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| Now that he mentioned it, Appletrees also removed a <nowiki>{{sockpuppet}}</nowiki> tag from {{User|Water Bear 87}}. I'd appreciate if the admins review that case as well. After that incident, I requested RFCU ].--] (]) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Nor can someone elected to ArbCom in the past year be recalled. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I made the report below on your disruptive accusation before making an official file. You cann't accuse anyone without any report or evidence. You're the one playing the false rule. --] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.== | |||
| ::Appletrees, being the good Wikilawyer that he is, should also note that ] states clearly "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." Also, it should be noted for Appletrees that Endroit did not initiate any block of the IP inquestion, he left a warning, which needs to be left so that the IP user in question has the opportunity to read it. Finally, the major problem is that it is not Appletree's right to remove comments made by one user to third user. If the user in question has a problem, they can raise their own objections. Appletrees should not be removing or altering discussions between two other people that do not concern him/her. --].].] 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Belarus ] 06:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe the 3RR waring is issued mainly for precaution in danger of violating impending 3RR. You, administrator of course, know well about the wiki rules than me. However, I've seen his parade of accusing somebody without proof but with his strong belief, so the warning sign doesn't seem to be appropriate and be from good faith. As far as I've known, Endroit is not a good wikilaywer because he take an important role in the center of nationalistic edit warrings between Japan and Korea. If he really wanted to warn him for possible edit conflicts, he could've talked to him in a civil way not with the warning. It is so funny, he accused me of sending "bogus sign" as removed the warning sign and my comment. | |||
| Add to wikidata. | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| :::Rv bogus warning by an involved party in the revert wars | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| Add the Romani article for Sweden: | |||
| If he is right on sending the 3RR warning to the editor, he might have not deleted my comment and warnings. Or he is also a main involved party, so his warning is not warranted or because ''he is the most notable edit warrior'' on the article. --] (]) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Sveko | |||
| Add the Romani article for Cyprus: | |||
| :No one appears to have violated the 3RR rule here, and everyone appears to know about it, so you can cease arguing about whether or not a warning was useful or not. Since this article includes the word "Japan" in the title, I reckon this is some more asinine Korean/Japanese/Chinese nationalistic edit warring. Since there's clearly a dispute, I've protected the article until you all can decide whether or not it should be called the "Sea of Japan", "East Sea", "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sea", "Chinese Sea Near Korea", "International Sea with No Nationalistic Affiliation (Especially not Japanese)", or whatever you end up deciding. --] (]) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Chipro ] 06:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata. | |||
| ===POV pushing and false accusation by ]=== | |||
| I should've reported his disruptive POV earlier but I didn't. Because I believe that before making a report, trying to converse with editors on the other party is way better. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Bosniya_thai_Hercegovina ] 06:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{la|Sea of Japan}} Endroit's revert warring with the other party. | |||
| * by Endroit | |||
| * 1st revert by Endroit | |||
| * 2nd revert by Endroit | |||
| * 3rd revert by Endroit | |||
| Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata. | |||
| * by Endroit | |||
| * by Endroit | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana | |||
| * by Endroit | |||
| * by Endroit | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts | |||
| * by Endroit | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland | |||
| How many revert warring have you ever made since 2008? 5 cases!!! And you totally '''reverted 10 times''' as you have pushed your POV to the other party. I reverted one time in partial of your edit which is a compromised version. Besides, I suggested twice that we can make a new poll for the matter due to this ]. | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois | |||
| Endroit, you are the one to get the 3RR warning per this evidence. Besides, as I said before on your talk page, you're violating ]. You can't own the article and force to follow your "own" rule if there occurs a conflict of interest. You didn't even notify me to this wrong report. | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania | |||
| {{la|User:DrinkNaval}} {{la|User:Water Bear 87}} | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| https://rmy.wikipedia.org/New_York_(stato) ] 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Per your false accusation without any proof or official report to SSP and RFCU on two editors who disagree with your opinion is just disruptive. As I've watched your behaviors, this accusation is out of line. After my suggestion, you made a RFCU file. But you even included me in your report without making differs but just from your belief. You should look yourself before making another mistake --] (]) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (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) | |||
| :All my reverts this year in ] were against ]'s and anon's, except the one against Appletrees. And ALL those reverts were against undiscussed edits. There were no rules broken.--] (]) 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ::That is just what you or your party are thinking. You haven't suggested to the other party to engage in the discussion before I reverted your edit in partial one time. The naming convention was set two and half years ago, and is not set on stone. That's why many editors have reverted what they want. Along with them, you also continuously just reverted!!!. You can't own the article at all and accused somebody unless they violated distinctive disruptions or vandalism. Your accusation of sockepuppetry on the two editors is just disruptive. --] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 19:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{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"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I recently started a discussion at ]. All parties are welcome to comment there. Appletrees' party has repeatedly tried to insert the phrase "''often refered to as East Sea''", and that was the reason I initiated the discussion.--] (]) 20:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That was after my suggestion for a new poll at the edit summary, so I can say I'm the one who suggested the discussion. Didn't I answer you about your unilateral 'fixing' on your talk page and the article page? Your party is not showing either except you. --] (]) 20:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Blatant vandalism == | |||
| ::::See my comment above. These tit-for-tat "reports" to ] are totally unproductive. There appears to be no need for admin intervention here, beyond the protection. --] (]) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{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) | ||
| ::Then why doesn't this user communicate that clearly to a user like me? Is it that difficult to do that? He can take the time to move the article and delete links to the article I have created instead of taking the time to say, 'Hey, good article, but you need to add source'? The source is the official website of the ] and I collected all data from there. Notability? Styrian derby has been listed here ] for quite a while but over the last twenty years no-one had ever bothered to do the work and make an article about it. There are only four real derbies in that country and I created a page about the second most important one (apart from ]). Seriously, it is this kind of behavior by arrogant administrators that has put many people off when it comes to editing Misplaced Pages. Instead of valuing INFORMATION and thanking users for the work they put in, Misplaced Pages chooses to value admins of whom quite a few are on high horses. This is exactly why I stopped donating to Misplaced Pages years ago. ] (]) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I wouldn't be surprised if Appletrees was ] reincarnated. The pattern of editing and the articles edited are uncannily similar. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 06:31, 24 January 2008 (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) | |||
| :::::::I am not surprised at your ''rude'' defamation because you're the main one of the party. You have to apology to me due to your public defamation after ]]'s accusation on my possible sockpuppetry RFCU comes out. --] (]) 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: doesn't help much, but consider looking at , you might find something WP-good there. ] (]) 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::What does "the main one of the party" mean? Your comment makes no sense. ···]<sup>] · <small>]</sup></small> 01:20, 25 January 2008 (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 == | |||
| == Prolific POV-pusher moving from Misplaced Pages to WikiNews == | |||
| {{atop|1=As 184* points out, this is (a) apparently sourced and (b) a content dispute. ] is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| It seems that everyone is ] in upcoming Malayalam films. Certain editors, mostly IPs, are unnecessarily adding the term to almost every article about Malayalam films, especially upcoming films. Either they don’t understand what an ensemble cast actually means, or they just think it looks pretty. This violates ]. I've noticed this trend for several months now. Please keep an eye on articles about upcoming Malayalam films. Relevant entries can be found in ], ], and ]. ] (]) 09:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you link a specific article this happened on, and which IP performed the edit? ] (]) 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. I really need some good advice here from experienced users. A prolific POV-pusher has made a move from Misplaced Pages to WikiNews and there do not appear to be mechanisms in place there to check him. I am referring to {{userlinks|Cirt}}. Cirt runs an incredible 5000+ edits per month with the main effect of his efforts being to bring articles critical of (primarily) Scientology to featured and front page status. And you know what, I have no objection to that. Misplaced Pages is a community and featured articles are the most scrutinized of all and I am comfortable with the community holding him in check so if he can make a Scientology-critical piece into a featured article then more power to him. Of course in areas that are not scrutinized he has more "freedom of expression" as in the article on ] where the only "Theme", according to Cirt was that Scientology is a cult, see . He expanded it a bit after I pulled his little piece though it is still unduly weighted. Or perhaps Curt's recent spat of AfDing and prodding Scientology-series articles that are, IDK, not sufficiently critical? I am not going to play around with words here, I respect this community too much. I, for one, am 100% certain that Cirt is a reincarnation of {{userlinks|Smee}} (formerly {{userlinks|Smeelgova}} who disappeared just before Cirt appeared. Their interests, article for article, are identical, as is their editing style and ], with Smee famous for bringing material critical of Scientology to the front page under ].<br><br>So what does this have to do with WikiNews? Well, we were discussing a recent DDOS attack on the CofS on the talk page and whether it was notable (consensus seeming to be no, not notable) and I saw a reference to a WikiNews article so I went over there. I found that someone had been very busy indeed! Not only an article on Jan 20, ''Hackers attack Church of Scientology website'' but another today, ''"Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology"'' and the first raised to ] status. So today, a release by some bunch of anonymous haters is front page news along with Gaza and Iraq. Who would think that? Who would benefit from that thought? Of course, I find that both were essentially written by the same person, Wilhelm. And I happen to know that Cirt's original name here was ], an alias once used by ], the founder of ], another of Cirt's targets, see the little treatment at ], similar to the treatment at ] (you may need to go back a bit as recent GA review may have toned it down). I also recognize Cirt's style in the WikiNews articles but then I am very familiar with it.<br><br>So you see my dilemma? So long as Cirt was not repeating Smee's more offensive errors and working within the community, I had no huge problem with his efforts to push his agenda. I knew that the community was large enough and the structure strong enough to hold him in check and meanwhile the project gets a prolific editor. But this WikiNews thing is a dealbreaker for me. He is using the power of Wikpedia to push the ill intentions of a small group of ne'er-do-wells (and read their page if you do not know what they are about) and he is doing it with no regard for the project or for anything other than his agenda. And there do not appear to be mechanisms in place at WikiNews to hold him in check. I really do not know where to go with this. This is a big thing and, if Cirt/Wilhelm is left unchecked, it will only get worse. Help. Please. Thanks in advance. --] (]) 20:25, 23 January 2008 (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) | |||
| ::: (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 == | |||
| *Please speak more! Just kidding. Misplaced Pages has no power over Wikinews. What users do in out-space is not under our control. You can certainly cut Wikinews links from here if you find they are not ]. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| **Sorry, this is not a simple issue that could be summarized in a few words. --] (]) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (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) | |||
| ***Wikinews also has policy pages don't they? They must. It might be very helpful to that sister-project to take your concerns there as well. Remember that our policies were fine-tuned over many quite um.... enthusiastic discussions.] (]) 20:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Do you want the two pages it created deleted? ] (]) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ****Actually, Wikinews isn't a reliable source at all - ] specifically excludes open wikis such as Wikinews from consideration as sources. (Added) I note, though, that Wired has reported on the story that you mention (see ) so if you really want to document it I suppose Wired would suffice as a reliable source. I don't think it's a particularly notable episode though - don't fall into the trap of ]! -- ] (]) 21:43, 23 January 2008 (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) | |||
| *****I would note however some rumblings from certain "persons to listen to" that Wikinews *might* be coming up the world. (cf somewhere Jimbo has some thoughts on this) So some editors here should probably begin paying more attention to Wikinews Policy pages before the situation gets out-of-hand. ] (]) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{done}}! ] (]) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ******There was a fairly recent discussion about this on the Foundation-l mailing list if anyone wants to go through the archive. I believe it has to do with WikiNews's policy on "archiving" (protecting) articles once there is no more news relating to the subject. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ****Wikinews has the ] policy that all Foundation projects have. It has been reasonably well exercised over the years. ] (]) 11:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about ] == | |||
| I am not going to argue on source reliability of WN. If there is no wrong doing or proof then nothing to worry about. So stop trolling the trolls. ] (]) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Asked and answered. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Alerting this project to misuse of a sister project to basically promote cyberterrorism is hardly trolling. Let's see a front page story (or two or Featured) on WikiNews about some "announcement" by Encyclopedia Dramatica. Let's see how far that gets --] (]) 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Would ] and ] be covered under ] and ]? The source on ] notes Urartu has a {{tq|significant role in Armenian nationalism}}. | |||
| **WikiNews has the problem that their "front page stories" are really just a list of recent changes. They're probably going to have to come up with a better approach. What they have doesn't scale. --] (]) 06:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***No, they aren't. What is listed on the main page is determined by a story's status. And we came up with a scalable system ages ago. We have a wide range of specific topic and area portals. Indeed, the level of new stories has nowhere near reached what the system is capable of, yet. See how low the story rate is at ], for example. ] (]) 11:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Misplaced Pages has nothing to say about WikiNews? Yet when I look at the ] article, what do I see at the bottom but Cirt/Wilhelm's WikiNews over-promotion of the ill intentions of a loose collection of cyberterrorists. Interesting because at least one of the *chan's is showing more discretion than Misplaced Pages in that 7chan has apparently blocked promotion of this group's activity. That is a truly sad reflection on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Articles here are based on ] and consensus. There are many avenues to address your concerns but AN/I wouldn't be the appropriate one. We have policies that cover for example ] and ] and it sounds a lot to me like you're having a content issue, that should be taken to one of those talk pages, instead of here to get more input. ] (]) 20:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was asking for input about WikiNews and I learned that there is little that can be done here. I brought the subject up over there at ] but the little bit of response I got indicates that basically what is being run over there is more an open blog than a responsible news organization and Cirt/Wilhelm is free to turn the WikiNews site into "The Anti-Scientology News". Good news for him, no doubt. --] (]) 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Obsession=== | |||
| Your ], Justanother, with Smee and editors you presume to be Smee must end. You dislike the attentions that Anynobody directs at you, do you not? Then please stop chasing Smee. This whole situation reminds me of the crocodile and ] in ]. Tick, tock, tick, tock... ] <sup>]</sup> 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Ain't no "presume" about it but your point is taken. Obviously, my concerns fall on deafish ears. So be it. --] (]) 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Smee may or may not have editing problems. Given the history of bad blood, why don't you let somebody else deal with that? Likewise, I would give the same advice to Anynobody concerning your editing. If everybody follows this advice, we will have much more peace and happiness at Misplaced Pages. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I already said that I trust the community to hold Cirt in check as regards featured articles. I was addressing another point entirely and will not bore the reader by repeating myself on that. BTW, more eyes are especially helpful now at ] and related articles due to a spate of red users trying to forward the little 1337 campaign. --] (]) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| Other administrators may be interested in the discussion on my talk page at ]. It appears that ], an employee or manager of American Journal Experts, wants to track down whether the user who wrote the article, now deleted, is an ex-employee of theirs. I have no intention of having any further correspondence with him. --] (]) 03:58, 24 January 2008 (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}} . | |||
| :Agreed. I've suggested they contact the Foundation. Individual admins should never consider disclosing information like this. ] (]) 13:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'll add the relevant templates in ] and ]. And will remove this comment by non extended confirmed editor. ] (]) 14:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::See also ]. ] (]) 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Blocking unblocked ] nodes == | |||
| {{Archive top|This discussion has been closed as '''keep''' per ]. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)|Done}} | |||
| Someone please close this already as "keep", or "no consensus". Thanks. ] (]) 02:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am involved, but I believe that any outcome other than "keep" would be highly controversial. ] (]) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't it too early? -- ] (]) 03:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| ==Small technical question== | |||
| Hey, everyone. For a bit now, I've been creating and monitoring ], using my bot, ]. I believe, that I've got a stable list, of valid ] nodes, that allow exit to . No other exits, not the secure server, nothing else. It's been suggested, that my list is inaccurate, as someone else list shows a few more TOR nodes. I seriously believe, that this is because I double-check nodes, and, try to err on the side of not listing it, if there is any doubt at all. | |||
| 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 , 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? | |||
| 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) | |||
| : (Non-admin comment) the issue might be to do with the error message in this section: | |||
| ] presently states ''Open or anonymous proxies are prohibited from editing by the Wikimedia Foundation, and may be blocked on sight.'', so, it seems that policy supports this. However, ] has it's good uses, such as for chineese users. | |||
| ::::: <blockquote>User:49.206.131.126 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)</blockquote> | |||
| ::::: <blockquote>03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168561 by Adakiko (talk) The tile "Father of the nation" is sometimes used for Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in India but Part III, Article 18 of the Indian Constitution prohibits conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State.Cite error: A (see the help page). Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| ::::: <blockquote>Blocked – for a period of 1 month This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| ::::: <blockquote>References</blockquote> | |||
| ::::: <blockquote>User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)</blockquote> | |||
| : ] (]) 05:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::So, you're saying that the content is still there, it's just been hidden for years because of the absence of a closing tag by the archiving bot? I wonder if this has happened on other archive pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's still not clear to me how to fix this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Someone has fixed it (I wasn't willing to try it myself as it was well above my pay grade...) the only way I can think of for finding other cases of this would be searching other pages for the same error message but for all I know this could throw up thousands of false positives. ] (]) 06:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Same problem at ] , 25 sections but only a few are showing up. - ] (]) 07:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fixed now (thanks Daveosaurus). - ] (]) 07:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: You fixed the rest while I was looking for the other missing ref tag... there were at least two missing this time. | |||
| :::: For future reference (until someone comes up with an official techie explanation)... what was missing was a <code><nowiki></ref></nowiki></code> tag which meant massive chunks of content didn't show up. All that was needed for the fixes was to find out where the missing tag belonged and add it. ] (]) 07:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*Well, thanks to whomever fixed this problem on this one archive page. It would be great if we could get a bot to scan for missing ref tags on archive pages. I know as an admin, I search admin noticeboards archives all of the time for previous reports and if even 10% of them are hidden because the archiving bot is cutting off tags when it reposts content, that could impact the work that we do. I know that this is a longterm issue to fix but we don't know how extensive it is. Maybe I'll put in a request on the Bot Noticeboard. But I appreciate editors who had some creative solutions here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit war with User:Mellk vs User:Rnd90== | |||
| I'm presently, contemplating on a one-time run, blocking all valid TOR exits, that allow access to en.wikipedia.org, leaning towards setting the following flags: Anon only, Account Creation Blocked. The block would be for a period of 48 hours, as a test, and, tagging those exits with {{t1|tor}}. This would leave open the secure server, for the duration of this test, and allow for logged-in editing. This would be in order to enforce our policy on ], which is in place, to prevent ], and ], particularly by ]. | |||
| {{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: | |||
| Now, I want to make it crystal clear, that I absolutely do not intend on doing this, without a clear consensus here, to do so. Also, if I do, I have absolutely no intention on continuing it in the future, without an equally clear consensus to do so. I run a TOR node, myself, however, I disallow wikipedia exits. | |||
| 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">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :{{user|Rnd90}} was edit warring attempting to restore edit they made. I originally removed this writing in the edit summary that it does not belong in the first sentence. We also have IPs appearing to restore the edit as well. This looks like a pretty clear ]. ] (]) 13:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to see what other admins, and editors think, about doing this. Especially, hardblock v softblock. ]] 05:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Dubai chocolate == | |||
| :<s>''Open or anonymous proxies are prohibited from editing by the Wikimedia Foundation, and may be blocked on sight.''</s> ''Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked for any length of time to deal with abuse.'' This has bugger all to do with the Foundation – ] 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop | |||
| :One objection I have is after this is done will there any way to anonymously create an account and edit and if so has this process been detailed anywhere? This may be a stupid idea but I don't have any trust in the checkuser process nor the foundation's ability to protect user information against large organizations or corrupt governments. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| | 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) | |||
| ::There's always , I see a lot of account creation traffic there, already. ]] 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :I would suggest that there is neither a prohibition on Tor nodes editing, nor a policy against it, nor any overwhelming reason to block them ''all''. There is also no censensus on the soft-or-hard-block question. The recent discussion at ] is probably relevant. If someone is writing a bot, how about one to ''unblock'' all the indef-blocked proxies which are no longer open. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd be happy to :) If you get me a list of every IP presently blocked for being a TOR / proxy (I've got a list of the 222 present blocked TOR nodes), I should be able to have it done by the end of the day... As far as policy regarding disabling editing from TOR, there's a couple, ], and ] quoted above. Not talking about blocking them all, either... Just the ones that allow WP exit (and even then, just to the regular server -- not the secure server). ]] 13:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::There are currently over 7,000 dynamic IPs listed at ] waiting to be checked, and there's a whole category full (I count over 2,000) listed at ]. I rephrase my point - there is no overwhelming reason to block ''all the Tor nodes capable of editing Misplaced Pages'', nor any consensus on the other issues. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 13:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I didn't realize there was a category! Unfortunately, real life has intervened once again :( I'll look at them in a moment, thanks! ]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :One of the more fundamental principles of Misplaced Pages is that anyone can edit. Blocking tor nodes would unnecessarily hinder this principle. Soft-block them all. ]] 13:36, 24 January 2008 (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. | |||
| :SQL, give me 24 hours and Ill get you a list of all IP's that are blocked after 2010. that will be all indef's and very long IP blocks that are caused by proxy blocks. ] 16:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Betacommand, could you possibly filter it by those with {{t1|tor}} in/as the block message? ]] 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::SQL http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand/tor%20IP.txt that is a list of all IP's with "tor" in the block summary sorted by unblock date. ] 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| There is an IP who made some changes while I was about to expand the article, so I saved my edit ignoring the edit by the IP because I also disagreed with the IP's edits. So sometime later an IP from the same range made a very similar edit, this time I explained it in detail why I don't think these edits are appropriate ] and even before I could save my edit on the talk page, ] also made such a similar edit. I saw that Dan Palraz even moved ] which was fortunately soon reverted as undiscussed move by ]. | |||
| == AWB == | |||
| 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) | |||
| Hi. I just added my name and noticed there is a backlog of requests at ] for AWB, dating back to January 13. Thanks -- ] '''|''' <span class="plainlinks">] '''|''' ]</span> 06:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :It's not a backlog. {{ul|Porcupine}} is the only user who was listed before yoyu got there, and {{ul|The Placebo Effect}} is looking into it. ] ] 06:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Potential paid article writing (or just very bad form) by @] == | |||
| == Imahge speedy backlog == | |||
| {{atop | |||
| Can some admin please deal with the ]? There are over 40. ] ] 06:37, 24 January 2008 (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) | |||
| == Review of indef block of ] == | |||
| :Nevermind. Checkuser got to them first. You can archive this now ] (]) 22:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Piperdown has asked that his block be reviewed in which he was accused of being a sock and/or meatpuppet of ]. I agree that it should be reviewed in light of recent events. Piperdown explains in a WR thread that it appears that someone monkeyed with his account to make it difficult for him to post to his talk page . Also, David Gerard's actions with respect to anything he thinks is associated with Overstock.com and WordBomb is suspect, the evidence being his block of a town in Utah, stating that WordBomb lived there and falsely stating that the local ISP was an open proxy . Only after a second, independent source confirmed that his statement was false did he unblock the town . I don't personally believe that Piperdown's block was justified or fair and am asking that he get a neutral review from an uninvolved admin. ] (]) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| : I read what Piperdown had to say both on his talk page here and on WR, and I have to say that I'm confused as to why he was blocked. He'd certainly seemed to be making perfectly good and valid edits up to the point of his being blocked, and his talk page looks pretty much like any other established editor's. He appears to have been indefinitely blocked without warning, from what I can see from his talkpage history. However, without David Gerard's input, I've very little to go on here so what I'd like to maybe see happen would be for David to post a statement here giving his rationale for indefinitely blocking Piperdown as a sock of Wordbomb, and allowing the admin community to review accordingly. I'm guessing David is unaware of this thread as of now, so I'll see he's made aware of it - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for looking into it and I admit that I was remiss in not notifying Gerard of this thread myself. ] (]) 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Confused why he was ever blocked in the first place. He needs to be unblocked immediately ] (]) 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This page ] makes it appear that the user is either Wordbomb or a meatpuppet of him. I suggest we wait to hear from the blocking admin. Since the block was placed several months ago this isn't urgent. ]] ] 08:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Since this user subpage seems to have played a large part in Piperdown's block, I've temporarily restored it so people can check out the evidence while this block is being reviewed. '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Piperdown is probably WordBomb's most vociferous supporter on Misplaced Pages Review, and his comments on WR leave little doubt that he is ''highly'' unlikely to be a productive member of the Misplaced Pages community. It is also not credible that he is only just aware of being blocked; I am sure his ban was mentioned on WR ages ago. This looks like gaming the system, or at least playing us for a bunch of naive fools. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :My reading of Piperdown's request is that he was aware of the block at the time it was placed and he is not claiming otherwise. ] (]) 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::His unblock request from September is all about how what he did was ok, not about how he would drop the subject so he could edit other areas of interest. Considering that, and his deleted contributions, I agree with Guy that he is unlikely to be (or resume being, if he was before) a productive editor. ] 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Someone contributions on WR have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to effectively write and edit articles on this project. I am shocked anyone would make such a claim. ] (]) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If there was no overlap between the two, fine. However, Piperdown's deleted contributions (especially ]) shows that he wants to pursue the same agenda as Wordbomb of attacking certain editors for alleged conflicts of interest on certain articles, and his unblock request from September did not say, "I want to write and edit articles" but "there is nothing wrong with pursuing conflict of interest charges in this case." ] 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Apparently, he admits that he created ] as a result of ], at least that's what the deleted page states. Regarding his September unblock request, how about we ask him what the situation is now? I'm not seeing a lot of evidence here other than hearsay and the after-the-fact comments that "he is unlikely to be a productive editor". I suspect he's active and vociferous on WR ''because'' he's been indefinitely blocked on here and that he sees his block as being in error. He appears to have always stated that he's not WordBomb and, frankly, if he ''was'' a throwaway sock of WB, he's kept up this pretense for an awfully long time now - ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Alison, you might want to take a close look at some of the conspiracy-mongering this user engaged in before the block. Some diffs have been collected ], although these only scratch the surface. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: I'll admit that I've no idea of this editor's background or past history, but I'll take a look. From his talk page history, it looks just like any other, really. I'd like to see David Gerard comment here as he's obviously the most familiar - ] <sup>]</sup> 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If "pursuing conflict of interest charges" is something to be discouraged, we should delete ]. Even if the conflicts he believes exist in fact do not - I'm sure there are some percentage of ] reports that turn out to be incorrect. He has the right to be wrong. —] 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::But he does not have the right to harass other users as a proxy for a banned editor. If he wants to pursue COI charges "for the good of the Wiki" he can contact Arbcom privately. I suppose he could be unblocked if he said something like "I disagree on principle but I will avoid that subject and edit other topics" (subject to monitoring by whatever admin took responsibility for him by unblocking) but honestly his defenders here are doing more harm than good. ] 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == PayPal Honey edit warring == | |||
| :::It's not a question of avoiding one subject, though. He used to follow me around trying to tie every admin action of mine into his grand conspiracy theory, and I'm probably not the only one he did it to. Can any of his defenders point to any good content he added to the encyclopedia? <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Page protected. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::::The last time you made such a statement, it led to a flood of meatpuppets blanking pages that Jon Awbrey had contributed to in order to prove a ]; right or wrong, I would suggest you ought to do more research before categorically stating (as you did there) or implying (as you did here) that someone has made no worthwhile contributions, since even ignoring the disruptive effect, it is a personal attack. —] 17:46, 25 January 2008 (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) | |||
| Does ] apply here? This is pretty much what the question boils down to at the root. If he may help wikipedia, then an unblock is right. If it's clear that he won't, then the indef block is fine. Since I haven't followed the case, I don't have an opinion personally. ] 19:06, 24 January 2008 (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. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am shocked this has gone on as far as it has. This fellow is blocked because he's posting at WR and because of what he ''might'' do. Seemingly, he has an opinion held by another blocked editor. Shocking. Unblock this person and be done with this. ] (]) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (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. ] ] 06:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, there's an extensive history of meatpuppet behavior here, which has reached the "quacking louder than we can ignore anymore" stage. Wordbomb and other overstock.com related abusers are not welcome here, in any form. You cannot reasonably ignore the long history of misbehavior that this user has exhibited. What they're saying now here and presumably on Misplaced Pages Review (I haven't gone to look yet) doesn't excuse or explain their contributions for the last year. ] (]) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like in the last few minutes it was fully projected for 2 days. ] ] 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have a really, really tough time with a random, anon IP telling me that overstock.com abusers are not welcome at wikipedia. Moreover without any arbcom or other policies to backup your claim I am at the verge of giggles. This whole thing is silly. Unblock the fellow who was a good contributor to this project and enough of these silly games. ] (]) 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :shouldn't this be reported at ] with prereq diffs? ] (]) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Then I will agree with the IP editor that Piperdown's block is about more than ''OMG he posts to WR.'' And do you really mean "overstock.com abusers" should be welcome? I assume there is typo in there somewhere, because editors who are associated with overstock.com and its crusade to explain its crappy share price as the result of naked short selling, and who then go on to smear anyone who says otherwise, including ''Wall Street Journal'' reporters, stock analysts and Misplaced Pages editors and administrators, is absolutely ''not'' welcome to edit Misplaced Pages, unless they are willing to leave that behind them when they put on their Misplaced Pages hat. Tell you what, as soon as Piperdown agrees to stay off the topic, you can personally unblock him, as long as you are willing to be responsible for his edits. Oh wait... ] 20:22, 24 January 2008 (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) | |||
| :::::SV and others claim he was blocked due to harassment, so I don't see how a topic ban would help...unless he was actually blocked due to an unpopular POV. I'm also a little puzzled by this block. ] '']'' 22:06, 24 January 2008 (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) | |||
| :: In fairness, Piperdown has not been blocked because he posts to WR, he's been blocked because he's been accused of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of WordBomb. That's the issue here, not WR participation - ] <sup>]</sup> 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| :::I think he was blocked because he was harassing people, in a way that suggested WordBomb sock or meatpuppetry. But it's the harassment (trolling, wikistalking, conspiracy-mongering) that was the main issue, as I recall. <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looking at the "evidence" compiled on Mantanmoreland's sub-page, I don't see any harrassment or incivility severe enough to warrant an indefinite block. In fact, I've seen some of the editors who have commented above, including myself, give opinions on issues that are just as strong. The fact that he spends some of his editing time addressing a few of the issues that Wordbomb took an interest in should also not be an offense worthy of an infefinite block. Looking at his contribution history shows a lot of value-added edits to a great variety of topics. Any association with what may or may not be Wordbomb's past agenda, no matter how tenuous, should not be some kind of "third rail" that results in indefinite blocks for good faith editors. Again, I don't believe Piperdown was treated fairly here or in a manner consistent with how other editors are treated. ] (]) 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again, the issue was the harassment, which was similar to the harassment WordBomb engaged in (similar subject matter, similar voice, the same targets), but the issue was the harassment, and it was pretty extensive. Can you supply some diffs showing positive content he added to the encyclopedia? <font color="Purple">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::One has only to look at his contributions list. In addition to editing a wide variety of topics, he also started at least one article (diff later). Do you have any evidence of what most would consider to be harrassment? ] (]) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Well, there's one, still looking through contribs. ] 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm guessing that's a response to SlimVirgin's request and not Cla68, since the diff appears to be a productive edit, and I can see nothing harassing about it. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Yup, that was a response to SlimVirgin. She asked for diffs, so I provided one. To be fair she asked for diffs, plural. So, here's a few more: ] 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: <s>Are you kidding? "He was blocked because he posts at WR". Better pull out the banhammer then, more than a few administrators post at that site. How about "for what they do/don't do", not "who they associate with, and what 'we' think of their association". I realize it is ''de rigeur'' to play the "WR=Troll" card, but it really looks nothing more than petty when stated so clearly. ] (]) 04:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)</s> Struck as a result of misreading Bstone. My sheepish apologies. ] (]) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I meant some hyperbole, but they are using his activities in WR to justify the continued block. ] (]) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) I think at this stage it would be more useful if diffs of clear cut harassment were supplied to back up the block. Arguments have been stated expressing that the block should be removed, so evidence refuting these arguments should be supplied. If none can be produced, then an unblock is clearly in order. Remember - anyone unblocked can be reblocked, and its unlikely anyone will die in the meantime. <sup>]]</sup> 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor == | |||
| :This block was already challenged and upheld.: | |||
| {{atop | |||
| | status = Forum shopping | |||
| | result = Duplicate of ]. Please discuss there. — ] ] 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>Decline reason: "I don't know about the overstock.com issue, but your stalking page User:Piperdown/1 was unacceptable, and is not less so because another user may have created a similar page. Your personal attacks on the blocking admin do not help to persuade me that you have understood what you did wrong and that you will stop doing it when unblocked. — Sandstein 06:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
| }} | |||
| Dear Wikipedians, | |||
| 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. | |||
| :I'm a bit fuzzy as to what has changed since then. In fact, his personal attacks on me and other editors off-site certainly don't indicate that he has any kind of deeper understanding that what he did was wrong.--] (]) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively. | |||
| :::"Consensus can change"... right? If there is new information, anyway? ++]: ]/] 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed. | |||
| ::And that decision is sovereign and not subject to community review? I think not. Notice that there are many voices chiming in here all saying that there is ''not'' enough evidence to show that an indef block is appropriate. Unblock this fellow and let's be done with this drama. ] (]) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't know enough about this situation to say whether anyone should be unblocked or not, but the "similar page" to which the reviewing admin refers, has been up since June of last year, even though such pages are "unacceptable". ] (]) 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::That page was a collection of diffs, Piperdown's own words. Piperdown responded with an attack page. It was deleted so I can't quote from it. Bstone, you don't have any inkling of the "evidence" so how can you say it was "insufficient"? Why the rush to unblock this character?--] (]) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::With a total lack of incriminating evidence, a request from the editor to be allowed to edit and a viewable and demonstratable history of good editing and you want me to side with you on keeping the indef block? Sorry, but judisprudence requires the liberation of the person. ] (]) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hi Sami, the only allowable circumstance (AFAIK) in which one editor may keep a collection of diffs (or otherwise collect "evidence") on another editor is in a short term situation where there is a forthcoming process to be initiated (such as preparing for an ANI report, filing an RfAR, or starting an RfC on an editor) otherwise it isn't allowed. That page should have been deleted as well a long time ago. ] (]) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems that the evidence page was overtaken by events. Bstone, sorry but nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it talk about "life, liberty and the pursuit of editing Misplaced Pages." Piperdown seems plenty liberated right where he is, which is in the pages of off-site websites where he can give full vent to his conspiracy theories as relates to the stock market and Misplaced Pages. and where he can now openly advocate WordBomb's cause.--] (]) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So without any evidence and with a history of good editing this fellow should remain blocked on your say so? That's a travesty. ] (]) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::He was not blocked on my sayso. I had nothing to do with it, or in his remaining blocked, or in his becoming an active and vibrant representative of the WordBomb Chowder and Marching Society off-wiki. He was blocked by Mr. Gerard, and I think it behooves us all to await his return. It is not a travesty of anything to do so, and the Bill of Rights will survive if Mr. Piperdown remains blocked in the interim.--] (]) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::You mis understand, Samiharris. I never said he was blocked because of you but you are the one pressing for his ''continued'' block, but without a shred of evidence. Sans evidence or Mr Gerard, it behooves us to immediately unblock him and allow him to return to editing wikipedia. What he does off-site is not any of our business and I urge you to stop worrying what people do with their time outside this project. ] (]) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Without commenting on the merits of an unblock, this editor has been blocked for nearly 4 months. There's no sudden urgency to unblock him "immediately". Surely we can wait for a bit more community input, or even for the blocking admin to comment? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It can go both ways, tho. 4 months of injustice, as I see it, and now any lack of incriminating evidence would mean an immediate unblock would be prudent. But I think taking a step back at this point would be wise. Say 48 hours to wait for Mr Gerard? ] (]) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Uh, no, sorry. This is not up for general review. Meatpuppets of known '''extremely''' banned users don't get the benefit of the doubt. And non admins don't get to come to AN and insist that admins comply with their idea of justice. | |||
| :::::::::::If someone has good evidence that this was a mistake, then they should have posted it here. Nobody has. Lacking that good evidence, this is functionally (if not labeled properly) a community ban. The appeal process for community bans is Arbcom, or Jimmy. Neither of those venues are particularly happy with Bagley and companies ongoing hijinks, but they will listen to an appeal request. ] (]) 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Except Admins (such as Alison and myself) may have problems with it (Alison has said she's reviewing the situation, and personally I haven't looked at it). I find your dismissiveness a bit disturbing, GWH. If there is good reason for the block, present it, and if it's agreed that it fits, fine, we'll get out of your way. But don't try steamrolling folks who have honest concerns. Also. Don't try calling it a community ban, and then say the community shouldn't come in and have their say about it (added On) ] (]) 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::The good reason for the block is why he was blocked - editing related to naked short selling, in patterns and with content that clearly passes the ] on association with Wordbomb / Bagley / Overstock. Yes, they edited other stuff, too. But there is quite clearly a major focus of editing on those topics, and even a brief review of their edits (to the naked short selling article, to biography articles of people accused of naked short selling, etc) will show that the patterns there are identical to the ones that are Wordbomb signature, and have resulted in quite a large number of sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts to be banned from the site. | |||
| ::::::::::::This is not new, and not news. That Wordbomb related accounts are banned from Misplaced Pages due to innumerable abuses from Overstock people is not new, and not news. Any cursory review of the last 500 edits by {{user5|Piperdown}} shows a clear pattern of that type and content of edit. The duck quacks, and it does not quack alone in a field where nobody notices. It quacks in the usual place, with the usual suspects. | |||
| ::::::::::::The duck is not welcome. ] (]) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Also - on the community ban / input point - a community ban ends when an administrator (any administrator) unblocks. Per definition. It does not end when a random user account, who I AGF about but is not an administrator, insists that it must. Bstone does not have standing to insist on an unblock, though he can of course comment and request etc. Any administrator on this thread can simply unblock. However, I hope that they review the contributions history and consider what's there. ] (]) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {outdent) ] applies to new editors, not editors who are with the project for 7 months. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I am going to have to back up SirFozzie's reasoning here, and while I have not looked into the block or the edits, I did take a look at both /1 pages and have to echo Alsisons question - why are they so different that one got someone indef blocked and the other hung around on WP for ages? As a WR member I have had contact with piperdown, and have to say, that if he is a sock of wordbomb, that pretense has gone on waaaaaaaaaaaay longer than it had to - making it unlikley that he was ever a sock. The word meatpuppet has also been bandied about, but I find it hard to work out how an established editor can be a meatpuppet. It seems to me that some people might actually just come to the same conclusion, either independantly or through communication, thereby holding their own views that happen to overlap? Independant thought, now there is a novel concept. ]] 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's an extensive history of sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry associated with Wordbomb / overstock accounts. Figuring out who a person is and what the connection is are interesting intellectual exercises, but not necessary - ] is behavioral based, and the behavior pattern here matched. Contrary to you and Kendrick's assertions, Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are what they are, established user or not. We ban established accounts for acting as an agent for / reposting stuff for indef blocked accounts. Meatpuppetry is a more subtle version of that. Anyone can start doing that on behalf of a banned user. And an alternate identity sockpuppet is clearly not beyond these people - they've done it a lot before, and are probably, nay almost certainly doing it now with other accounts we have not yet tagged. ] (]) 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Georgewilliamherbert, I just need to say that your dismissive, condescending attitude to non-admins only furthers to widen the gap between admins and regular editors. You were given ''tools'' to help the project but not a platform of power. Your attitude is profoundly disturbing. ] (]) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Bstone, please keep the discussion civil and focused on the case at hand, and either ignore attitudes that rub you the wrong way or take your concerns up on the person's talk page. We don't need this to generate unwarranted heat. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, civility is of paramount importance. Which is why I stand to is at all times. ] (]) 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Without speaking to the merits of this particular case, it seems to me that if several trusted and informed editors are dubious about the conclusions drawn, then the ] test is by definition not met, no matter how convincing others may find it. The duck-spotter should always be willing to show that they have not mistakenly identified a loon or other fowl creature, if a colleague asks in good faith for such assurance. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(edit conflict) Non admins are as welcome as anyone to point out questionable actions, provide evidence, etc. | |||
| ::::To date, you have posted no evidence that Piperdown isn't who David Gerard thought he was. Nobody has yet refuted the point that hundreds of the last 500 edits made by Piperdown fit the Wordbomb edit profile to a T. | |||
| ::::Perhaps, despite that, they are in fact someone else and unrelated. However, ] establishes a reasonableness test and then shifts burden of proof. We have a historical pattern used repeatedly by ... I don't know exactly how many by now, but I've seen dozens of Wordbomb sockpuppets over time. A large quantity of Piperdown edits match that pattern. Duck test's criteria are met. | |||
| ::::This is a rebutable conclusion. But it's a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence. Any administrator who seeks to overturn the indef block should generate reasonable evidence to rebut that conclusion first. | |||
| ::::The observation that you don't have the authority to declare what jurisprudence demands we do ("'''Sorry, but judisprudence requires the liberation of the person.'''" as you said earlier) is perhaps rude but it's also very importantly correct. Misplaced Pages doesn't allow just anyone, even just anyone who's a longstanding editor, to make user block decisions (in either direction). That power is reserved for administrators, with appeal to the body of administrators as a whole, the Arbitration Committee, and Jimbo ultimately. | |||
| ::::It would be foolish for me or anyone to declare that abusive user blocking never makes mistakes. I have myself made mistakes doing so. Being open to the possibility that a given action (mine, or someone elses) is wrong is an important part of being a responsible administrator. | |||
| ::::All of that said, nothing that's been posted here so far has positive information content that changes my mind that the earlier conclusion was correct, that Piperdown is either Wordbomb or acting in concert with them. A couple of people who frequent Misplaced Pages Review have indicated that they think that Piperdown is not, based on discussions with them over there. However, those opinions don't have any specific WR discussion posts or thread links provided, and haven't addressed the edit patterns here which were the Duck test evidence. | |||
| ::::Perhaps we'll have such evidence tomorrow. If Alison or Viridae or you or others post it, I will read it and consider it. ] (]) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thankyou! ]] 15:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::On the face of it, he has a lot of productive edits. What kind of evidence should we have? Are we trying to prove a negative? Can you prove ''I'm'' not related to Wordbomb? If I was blocked for this reason, could anyone prove I'm not? ] '']'' 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, you need to inform Kriji Sehamati. I have done so. This report, as well as the AfD's linked on your talk page all appear to be generated by LLMs. This appears to be a dispute about AfDs.] (]) 15:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] does not require anyone who opposes a block to take the (impossible) step of proving a negative. It's one thing if only a few people are disagreeing. But as Alanyst says, you can't just declare "WP:DUCK, prove me wrong or go away". | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Supposedly blocked editor appears unblocked == | |||
| ::::::You have very few edits that appear to match the Wordbomb pattern: ], ], ], ] and related topics are the predominant targets, though you have cleaned up ] a bit in the last few days, which is also involved. I don't think anyone could reasonably claim based on your edit patterns that you might be WB. The same cannot be said of {{user5|Piperdown}}, who though they have also edited diverse topics, on first impression appear to be about 50% contributing to Wordbomb target articles (those articles listed, articles about people associated with short selling, etc). People who only contribute tangentally if at all to the target topics associated with Wordbomb, and don't otherwise go on overstock.com related rampages in article or user talk or emails, are rather unlikely to be an active Wordbomb sock, though there are probably some sleepers out there which wouldn't be detectable by the Duck test at the moment. | |||
| {{atop | |||
| ::::::As I said upwards - Piperdown could be a false positive on the Duck test for Wordbomb. But, hundreds of edits by them fall into the pattern, and it's really really suspicious. Just look at the last 500 edits in history, much less going back further. | |||
| | result = Globally locked accounts may not have local blocks, but still cannot edit. — ] ] 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We could run a whole stack of sample users through "prove or disprove that they're X", but there aren't many that have the problematic contribution histories which are very short selling centric as to match Wordbomb's pattern. Piperdown does. ] (]) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :::::You seem to be very big on "you don't get to say what has to happen, that's for us administrators". The ''community'' has a voice. The ''community'' decides. The ''community'' does (be it as a whole, or subsections thereof). You take this approach, and then you start to state that if people have evidence, you will "read and consider it". Consider rewording, as your tone and phrasing implies that the decision is yours to make. You name administrators, and state that they may supply evidence for your consideration. The duck test is inconclusive, especially when there seems to be something very far from consensus here. It is not a crime of meatpuppetry to hold similar opinions to that of a banned user. Out of curiosity, what is an "'''extremely''' banned" user? Is that like, with apologies to ] a "''strenuous'' objection"? ] (]) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Similar opinions didn't get Piperdown in trouble. Plenty of people don't like short selling. Piperdown edited on first glance about a dozen articles in the topic in the same manner, and with the same intensity, that Wordbomb and other confirmed WB socks did. Walks like a duck. | |||
| ::::::Extremely banned would cover things like creating a website dedicated to, among other things, stalking and harrassing Misplaced Pages editors and administrators, including trying to harrass them at home and at work. Wordbomb and related overstock.com staff are not welcome here. You are welcome to talk to Arbcom or Jimmy about it. ] (]) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::George care to provide actual examples where Piperdown edited "In the same manner as wordbomb"? That would certainly give weight to your accusations. ]] 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::(outdent) They are contributing 50% to "WordBomb target articles" (which, as you say, means "articles related to naked short selling"). Are we really banning people for having ''similar interests'' to banned users? Or is there only one person in the world who cares about naked short selling? -] <small>]</small> 04:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::To the same set of articles, if their edits appear to be of the same nature? And also being an active Misplaced Pages Review participant? That's what the Duck test definition is, pretty much. It's established policy... ] (]) 04:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When Piperdown started editing naked short selling, which was within a few days of arriving at Misplaced Pages, he immediately started edit warring and was belligerent in the extreme. It is not as if a light bulb went on over his head after he had been pacifically editing for some months. He immediately commenced edits that misconstrued sources to twist to his POV. He also was paranoid in the extreme. I remember praising some edits that he did and getting my head bit off on the grounds that I was being "patronizing" or somesuch. In hindsight he is about as obvious a WordBomb meatpuppet as can be imagined. He then attacked me in his attack page, and alleged that I had some connection with a journalist he hates because of clues of a relationship with Chicago, which is where the journalist went to school. It was paranoid, loony stuff and it is a wonder that Piperdown remained unscathed for as long as he did. He was not just quacking like the duck WordBomb but leaving droppings all over the place.--] (]) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's not like all new users are nice. There are many new users who edit war and are belligerent. In fact, that's probably evidence that he ''was'' actually new, since someone familiar with Misplaced Pages would know how to avoid being viewed as bad. As for Misplaced Pages Review... that's really not relevant. Unless someone has evidence that I'm a sockpuppet? -] <small>]</small> 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That he complains on WR seems to be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, unfortunately. He was blocked on September 7, 2007; his WR account was created three days later on September 10. Frustrated people often feel the need to vent, and it looks like Piperdown, like many other Wikipedians who feel sleighted, found WR in the wake of his block and decided to vent there. It's a bit of a shame, since there's really nowhere else for them to appeal and take legitimate complaints to, and they get lost in the muck of frivolous accusations and poisonous speculation that is WR. '''<font color="#ff9900">]</font><font color="#ff6699">]</font>''' 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (Another outdent.) The problem with ] (which is an essay, neither guideline nor policy) is that it is highly susceptible to ]: we tend to see what we expect to see and unconsciously ignore or discount evidence to the contrary. If there were a person who shared WordBomb's views on naked short selling, etc. but was trying to constructively contribute to WP, how would we distinguish them from a WordBomb meatpuppet? Aside from the common interest, what criteria would separate the block-worthy from the barnstar-worthy? Can anyone show, with diffs, that a significant number of Piperdown's edits would have been found disruptive if they had been about 18th-century poetry instead of Overstock-related matters? If so, I'm all for maintaining the block, but if not, it seems reasonable to offer another chance at contributing constructively. I'll be honest, what I've seen of Piperdown's comments on WR worry me about inviting a mud-slinger here where too much mud is already slung - but perhaps Piperdown will resolve to interact differently here given the different environment and purpose. I'm sure plenty of people will keep a close eye on him in case he proves to be here to disrupt. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Just how is one supposed to wind up with a NPOV article on naked short selling if one side of the debate on it is declared to be "acting for a banned user" and forbidden? ] (]) 04:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Every Misplaced Pages editor should be capable of writing articles with the neutral point of view. We don't need active Neo-nazi editors in order to write an NPOV article on Adolf Hitler. There are plenty of press reports on naked short selling to summarize, personal knowledge or viewpoints aren't required. ]] ] 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The pattern is not "just editing naked short selling". Piperdown's edits on Overstock related topics in a wider sense are the rest of the pattern. By no means has every editor involved in the Naked short selling article done anything like other Overstock related edits which raise suspicions. ] (]) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Piperdown questionable edits === | |||
| Section break, and new section to list out Wordbomb pattern edits ... ] (]) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :So... going back through Piperdown's history. I decided to start at the beginning and work forwards. | |||
| :A week after signing up, this first edit to ], the first in the Wordbomb pattern as far as I spot: restores a Christopher Cox quote that had been added by {{user5|Errudite (sic)}} earlier that day, which has been specifically added by a bunch of Wordbomb sockpuppets. On closer examination, Errudiate (sic) proves to be an shiningly clear example of Wordbomb sockpuppets, and not previously identified as such and blocked - however, I have just rectified that. | |||
| :Three edits later, to ] - , again a link Wordbomb's used before. | |||
| :More to come, later. Others welcome. ] (]) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wait wait. So, when looking at this evidence you've seen before, you ''run into another sockpuppet''? Does it occur to you that it's far more likely that your sockpuppet detection method is faulty? It's reasonable that most people interested in naked short selling read the same stuff... -] <small>]</small> 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Did you actually review Errudite (sic)'s edits? ] (]) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have. I fail to see how they can be reliably differentiated from edits by someone else who doesn't like Gary Weiss. -] <small>]</small> 05:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The only people with a serious beef against Gary Weiss who've showed up on Misplaced Pages are Wordbomb and his gang. It's not ''normal'' for people in the world to have large beefs with financial reporters. Your comment doesn't make the case that they're not in the pattern... it reinforces it. ] (]) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Except the only reason you have to ''believe'' this is that everyone who dislikes Gary Weiss has been discredited as being in WordBomb's gang. That's circular logic, which does not help. -] <small>]</small> 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| So because he restores a section of text he believes to be valid he is immediatley a meatpuppet. Its not possible of course that he actually agreed with the addition of that text, not necessarily knowing that it was a (possible) sockpuppet? And I am still waiting for evidence of him editing "In the same manner as wordbomb", not just having an overlap in idealogies... ]] 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have to sign off for the night, but jeez. They have over 1500 edits. I presented two examples ''in the pattern'' (not necessarily by themselves conclusive, but in the pattern) '''''in the first fifty edits they ever made'''''. Properly documenting everything that Piperdown did that matches the Wordbomb pattern will undoubtedly take dozens to hundreds of specific edits listed, and probably a day or two of people digging and listing them. If your point is that I have not ''yet'' established the case with what I posted here then that's fine. That will take time. If you don't think it's there because it wasn't evident and clear '''''looking only at the first 3% of their contributions so far''''' ... ] (]) 05:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Notice the huge chorus of community members who are challenging and questioning the validity of this. I add my voice to this growing number. ] (]) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah, we got that Bstone. | |||
| :I think Georgewilliamherbert's point is that editing on these topics is inherently unlike, say, editing from a stridently pro-Palestinian position. Many people in the world have the same POV as stridently pro-Palestine banned users, but WordBombesque opinions on Byrne and naked short selling are relatively much more likely to be coming from Overstock.com or its agents. As an empirical matter, I suspect this is true. I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason for a ban though. ] '']'' 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::His edits on Misplaced Pages Review confirm that. I'm not suggesting they be used to justify the continued ban, as I don't think it is necessary. But it is worth observing that Piperdown is one of the most off the wall, paranoid contributors to Wiki Review, and it's always "Weiss this" and "Weiss that," and how "Weiss" is the source of all that ails Misplaced Pages. If there was any doubt that he was a WordBomb meatpuppet he allayed those doubts after he left here.--] (]) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're still only giving evidence that he really hates Weiss. That's certainly true, but that doesn't make him WordBomb. -] | |||
| ::::OK, granted. Maybe he hates Weiss because he was involved in an auto accident with him, and just by coincidence also happens to be obsessed with naked short selling. Let's get real about this.--] (]) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <small>]</small> 05:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::His account on WR ''postdates'' his ban from WP. WP:CIVIL or not (and without implying that WP policies carry any weight elsewhere), it would seem to be an entirely human failing to have some anger towards someone you might see (be it correctly or incorrectly) as having played a role in your being banned (and I qualify that by saying that my statement in no way implies Piperdown's blocking/edits at the time were or were not controversial). Also, I'd like to point out that, with ''exceptionally few'' exceptions, Piperdown's comments off-wiki have very little relevance here, as a matter of policy, and it is inappropriate to refer to his off-wiki behavior (because, if for no other reason, you have no idea that they are one in the same, though I'm happy to acknowledge that they are, the principle does not change) as justifications for an on-wiki block to continue. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| There is zero controversy that meat puppetry on behalf of banned editors has been something that invariably earns the meat puppet a ban. This has remained true for the 3 + years I've been contributing to Misplaced Pages. The only question is whether it is reasonable to view Piperdown as a meat puppet of Wordbomb. Most of those commenting here weren't even around when WordBomb participated here and was blocked, but I was and remember him well. And viewing the editing patterns of Piperdown, it appears likely to me that Piperdown is indeed a meat puppet of Wordbomb. That being so, I feel that the block was not only reasonable but necessary given our policy and convention on bans and meat puppetry and support the block of Piperdown. ] (]) 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This "meat puppet" claim is really bothering me. What does it even mean to be a meat puppet of someone gone for 10 months? It seems to mean merely that the user shares a POV and that we can't prove they're a sock puppet. There may be good reason to infer that such a user has a COI with regards to the subjects (see my comment above), but we're not banning them for meat puppetry per se. ] '']'' 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not quite what happened in this instance. He was blocked for being a meatpuppet of a banned user who continually re-appeared for many months on Misplaced Pages via several dozen socks. I believe there were about 40 checkuser-confirmed socks and an larger number of suspected ones, all blocked. There are quite a few others blocked for being WordBomb socks who are not on the list. This was not a situation in which one errant fellow was banned and then some poor slob was accused of being like him ten months later. This was a protracted situation over a period of many months.--] (]) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::So, because WordBomb had many sockpuppets, it logically follows that anyone who shares his views must also be a sockpuppet? What? I mean, that shows that the accusation is not unreasonable, but it is by no means proof. -] <small>]</small> 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm glad you agree that his block was reasonable. For further details on the block, you will have to await Mr. Gerard. All you can get from me is my worm's eye view.--] (]) 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Um, no, that's not what I said. It is reasonable to ''accuse'' him of being WordBomb, in the sense that it would be unreasonable to accuse him of being the Roswell space aliens. I have seen no reason to believe that the actual block was justified, because nobody has any reasons other than "but look, they share the same opinions!" If you think David will have better reasons, by all means wait for him. -] <small>]</small> 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't know if anyone's considered this, but if he's editing productively, does it even matter if the person behind the account was Wordbomb? Yes, I know what WordBomb did. But that would assume the two are one and the same, and I am unconvinced - the "evidence" provided for Piperdown being a sock of WB is really shitty evidence, and Piperdown should be unblocked. By all means keep an eye on his editng and if he acts up, take action then. ] ] 10:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'll second that, and repeat what I said above: Felonious et al. are misunderstanding ] and need to reread the policy. ''A '''new user''' who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Misplaced Pages solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.'' Simply making the acquaintance of a banned user isn't a reasonable excuse for an indef block, nor simply being an editor with a POV on ] different from the ]ers of that article, for that matter, who seem to find being able to declare any such editor a sock or meatpuppet of Wordbomb a little ''too'' convenient. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have no opinion either way on naked short selling. Wordbomb and overstock.com related accounts are not welcome here due to an obscene amount of corporate sponsored attacks on Misplaced Pages editors and other related abuse. There's nothing wrong with being against naked short selling and editing Misplaced Pages in a policy compliant manner to address that, which other editors have in fact done. When the pattern jumps out at you, of overstock.com plus naked short selling plus Byrne article edits, that's not a random opponent of naked short selling, that's someone associated with Wordbomb. And we block them. Making up false red herrings like "everyone who is against naked short selling is accused of being a Wordbomb sock" is just confusing the issue - I don't believe that statement, I have never heard anyone else who's blocked Wordbomb accounts make that statement, and I don't believe they believe it either. | |||
| ::Let's stick with the facts - there's a pattern which ties edit patterns across a wide set of topics together, which is distinctive and unique to Overstock.com and Wordbomb. Dozens, perhaps a hundred or more, accounts matched this pattern. Many of them were using IP addresses inside Overstock.com or in netblocks of homes in the area of its headquarters. Some of them are further afield, but display the exact same edit patterns. This account displays those edit patterns. ] (]) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Those three articles are intricately linked; this isn't some divine coincidence indicating a "pattern" which should "jump out" at anyone. ] is the CEO of ], whose article is 2/3s about a controversy over ], which article ''also'' mentions and links back to Byrne and Overstock. Dozens if not hundreds have edited all three articles which relate to <s>a current event</s> an {{t1|ongoing lawsuit}}, you say? I'm completely and totally unshocked. Running around blocking any editor no matter how long they've been with the project because you think they're all the same person, or friends of some person, who got indef blocked within their first 24 hours for violating ] a long long time ago? If that's not due to POV pushing, then it's extreme paranoia. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Wordbomb is indef blocked for a whole host of reasons including real-world stalking and harrassment, creating a Misplaced Pages editor stalking website, and dozens of checkuser confirmed sockpuppet accounts. Defending him is bizarre and inexplicable. Any account which ''is'' associated with him is most certainly not welcome. | |||
| ::::Yes, there's a topical linkage. However, contrary to your assertion that it's natural for people to edit the different articles innocently, the vast majority of those who have edited across the set of articles corresponding to Wordbomb's fingerprint have been proven, by Checkuser or self-admission later on, to have been sockpuppets or in a few cases meatpuppets. We did not leap to this conclusion. We have ''years'' of evidence that the pattern is used by WB and essentially nobody else. People who are interested in financial matters and aren't WB have made similar edits across smaller sets of articles, but haven't matched the whole identifying pattern. | |||
| ::::Piperdown does. | |||
| ::::I reinterate - I have no interest in or position on naked short selling or the financial industry/articles in general. I have a strong interest in keeping Misplaced Pages free of highly abusive accounts and people. I have never been engaged in an edit war or user argument with Wordbomb. But I've seen what he does here and on WR, and elsewhere. And if he pops up, like any responsible administrator aware of what all he's been doing, I block him. | |||
| ::::He and Overstock may turn out to have been entirely right about the financial industry ills associated with naked short selling. Even if they are, however, nothing in the world could excuse their grossly abusive behavior towards Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. They are not banned because of any conclusion as to the merits of their position on the issue. They're banned because they behave sociopathically and abusively towards editors here, tracking down real names, calling their homes, their employers, their friends, trying to get them fired, urging others to stalk them in real life, threatening violence, etc. | |||
| ::::This behavior is categorically not ok. It is not "indef blocked for violating NPA". This case is the single worst case, ongoing and sustained and widespread, of abuse of Misplaced Pages editors by a particular outside group. Defending Wordbomb is not OK. | |||
| ::::Piperdown could be an innocent mistaken identity case in this. But his behavior on Misplaced Pages Review didn't convince me of that. | |||
| ::::The magnitude of the situation absolutely calls for us to apply special attention and care, but also a firm hand to exclude Wordbomb. ] (]) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Looking at his WR posts, it seems he might have conflicts with Samiharris, Mantanmoreland, other editors he accuses of sockpuppetry, and David Gerard. After a careful look at his many productive contributions, I support an unblock, but he should have a civility parole in place. He should understand that we won't tolerate personal attacks or idle accusations of non-abusive sockpuppetry. ] '']'' 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sounds fair and reasonable. I assume Alison is still waiting for a response from Gerard. I hope she will post a follow-up here on what action was taken or not taken. Thanks everyone. ] (]) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That's about as likely to work as bringing Willy on Wheels back on Misplaced Pages on page move parole. — ] ] 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Denial of speedy's by ] == | |||
| Can someone please review some of the speedy's denied by Jayron. There seems to be a large number of clear cut case's which as denied , I've listed 2 below | |||
| *] listed as nonsense , would tend to agree | |||
| *] clear cut case of copyvio. | |||
| From article ''The competition hosts approximately 25,000 boys and girls each year with all 32 GAA counties represented along with teams from London GAA and Warwickshire GAA. | |||
| When the preliminary competition is completed in each county, the winning club then travels to the host county or Provincial councils where they are hosted by families and engage the host club in hurling, camogie and handball games. Since 1971 over 1 million boys and girls have participated in this great festival.'' | |||
| From website | |||
| ''Each year some 25,000 boys and girls take part in this festival in all 32 counties. London and Warwickshire also participate in this festival. When the preliminary competition is completed in each county, the winning club then travels to the host county or province where they are hosted by families and engage the host club in hurling, camogie and handball games. Since 1971 over 1 million boys and girls have participated in this great festival.''] (]) 08:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd agree on Féile na nGael, a copyvio doesn't need to be exactly literal in order to be a copyvio. But somebody is now taking care of it by rewriting, which is of course better than deletion. I've prod'ed the other, won't object to somebody else speedying. Jayron is formally right on that one; the "blatant nonsense" clause is rather narrow. Although a bit of IAR wouldn't have hurt here. ] ] 08:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Doesn't Copyvio have to be deleted from the history also, not just removed from the article? ] (]) 08:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***Nah, not necessarily. We'd have a lot of work if we wanted to do that to all plagiarized revisions that get added here or there. ] ] 09:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ****Ok would just tidied up and removed the copyvio myself if I had of known that,Thanks you've been most helpful ] (]) 09:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***If an article is a copyright violation from the very first revision, it should be deleted. (It's possible to rewrite in place, but one ''must rewrite from scratch''. Using the prior content in any way creates a ], which is still a copyright violation. The {{tl|copyvio}} template directs rewrites to a new page where new articles can be started from scratch. This is the safest and the recommended way to do a rewrite.) If there is an earlier non-infringing version, it should be reverted. See ] and ]. ] (]) 11:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ****While I agree with Jayron32 that speedy deletion of ] was a close call, I have deleted the history revisions prior to the rewrite, just in case. I believe this solution meets the requirements Uncle G has set forth as well. Review welcome, as always. — <span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I tend to be conservative at times in my speedy deletion assessments. I have speedy deleted plenty of articles, but the speedy deletion criteria are fairly narrowly defined. For example, I deny many A7 claims because A7 is specifically written for articles where no assertion of ''importance'' is claimed. Where an article asserts that "Megadynocorp is the industry leader in widget production in the East-Midlands region", well, that is a clear assertion of importance. It claims a place as an industry leader. Whether such statements amount to Misplaced Pages's definition of ] is debatable, which is why there is a ]. A7 specificly exempts "notability" concerns as a reason for deletion, claims of importance are not the same as proof of notability. Likewise, the other criteria are specifically written as narrow as possible. G1, Patent Nonsense, the criteria that the Beer Pong Whatever game was tagged under, is specifically for gibberish or otherwise incoherant articles. The article was perfectly coherant. It was entirely in violation of ], however, NFT is not a speedy deletion criteria. There are other venues to get articles deleted, and a denial of a speedy deletion IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A KEEP VOTE BY THE ADMIN. I am not saying that these articles are worth keeping at Misplaced Pages, however the speedy deletion process is not equiped to deal with them. Even apparent NFT articles could turn up sources at some point. As far as the copyvio criteria, I have always taken the idea of "blatant copyright" (and that is the word in G12, "blatant") to mean a straight cut-and-paste text job. If an article is paraphrased from another source, and such a paraphrase represents a questionable use of copyright, well, its the kind of thing that requires interpretation of the reader to say how close the text is or isn't to the source text. That doesn't sound blatant. Its open for interpretation, which again, is why we have places for said debates to go on. For me, that there are 2 other deletion processes in place, means that there is less harm in keeping a borderline case than deleting it. If its borderline, then having a discussion as to which side of the border it lies is appropriate... --].].] 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*Very well stated, Jayron. I've been doing a bit of CSD myself, and it's a lot tougher than it looks on the surface. Either the article's creator is going to blast your talkpage, or the article's nominator. It's better to err on the side of keeping with an ''explicit'' edit summary that says exactly why it's not speedy and exactly ] the nominator should bring it. ] | ] 17:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bear beer bowl doughnut was tricky--I too almost deleted it as nonsense, but I decided to see if anyone else would do it. Borderline, and deleting or declining equally reasonable. An AfD would have given a quick snow delete, as an alternative. The question is more that if one admin explicitly declines, should another admin speedy it? I do not think so. ''']''' (]) 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Strictly construed, I don't believe bear beer etc. was speedy-able except as an "IAR speedy" - it wasn't nonsense, it was just a clear violation of ], which is currently not a speedy deletion criterion. I certainly wouldn't object to adding NFT (in some form) as a speedy criterion, as it's among the most common "wish I could speedy-tag this, but I'll prod it instead" circumstances I encounter when new-page patrolling. I assume it's been brought up before on ], though. ] (]) 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, I should note that getting a new CSD is about as hard as teaching a fish to ride a bicycle some times; for example I proposed that non-notable products be added to the A7 criteria, and it was completely shot down. Thus we are left with the strange situation that a company's article can be deleted as A7, but products and services provided BY that company can't, and stick around for 5 days under PROD or AFD. Is it ideal, no, but for CSD to be legitimate it must be enforced as currently written. When the criteria change to include articles like the beer bear whatever article, you will find me speedy deleting faster than you can type "db", but until then, I am constrained by the criteria. And, per its own instruction, sometimes I ignore ], where appropriate. --].].] 07:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Page protection == | |||
| Anyone noticed that protecting a page has two expiries?? | |||
| Is this an error??<br> | |||
| ] | |||
| I noticed it when I used the latest version, {{CURRENTVERSION}}, as used here. | |||
| Thanks, --] (]) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I just looked at the protection page and can only see one. You may want to check out ]. ] 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Well, on the SVN downloaded version, it showed two! --] (]) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **What Nakon meant to say was that issues of a technical nature are not really the specialty of admins; since this seems to be a software-related issue, the appropriate place to ask this question would be at the ]. Someone there will be able to understand what is going on, and may be able to answer your question, and possibly fix the problem. --].].] 17:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** Or you don't want to confuse Misplaced Pages with the software it uses. I suggest you head over to and ask question about the software there. --] (]) 20:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-automated tagging of Shared IP Addresses == | |||
| ] has requested that I post for community discussion about a bot that I ], called ]. If you are interested in commenting on the subject, please review the bot approval request at ] as well as the bot's userpage at ]. Thank you. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 17:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Surely this should also be somewhere like ] if you want broader community input? --] (]) 20:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Perhaps so; I will post it there as well. Thank you for the input. ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I know there was at some point a bot which would tag IP talk pages it recognized as being attached to schools; seemed quite helpful, and worked off WHOIS information in such a way that I don't recall ever seeing a false positive. Not sure who ran it or much about how, unfortunately. Would this be checking each time an IP edits, each time an IP gets a talk page message, each time a new IP talk page is created, each time an IP is blocked, run in batches, or some such? Major concern is probably accuracy, but provided that can be resolved pretty well, this seems like a generally good idea to me. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 07:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == bogus nom == | |||
| I think young {{user5|Agentperson}} is playing games - and see his edit history. He's had a few warnings about other vandalisms - might be time for something stronger. And while we're at it, isn't "USERNAME" a problematic username? <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If he was, he played the game in SEPTEMBER 2006!!! Look at the dates. The recent heath ledger vandalism is bothersome, but the test RFA page is so old it's collecting dust. I will delete it presently. --].].] 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hmm, I guess I didn't look at the dates. Sorry.... but at least it's one less page. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Looks like another bad RfA ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I do not think that is a joke, I think it is a new user who is does not understand the ways of Misplaced Pages. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font> 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Agreed, i never said it was a joke, but i don't think it is doing any good sitting as a archive. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, I wonder. See by the same Pookeo9 who started Burner0718, now starting one for himself. At the least, some counseling might be in order. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <undent>Maybe all he needs is a little directing and guidance. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry about that, anyways I will leave a note on the user's talk page. As I am not an administrator I can not do anything about those noms...but I would suggest keeping them as an example of What Not To Do. <font style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"><font color="#775ca8">]</font></font> 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Do you know the policy on this? == | |||
| A user wants his coaching discussion page deleted because he believes his IP could be discovered through it. What's the policy on this? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ... please see and reply to ]. | |||
| ''''']''''' 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : (posting here because it's not on your talk page) - The editor may still indeed be editing from a similar range, etc, and there may be enough information to geolocate them as a result. Personally, as it's a relatively trivial page, is in userspace, has only been edited my yourself and himself and if you're both in agreement, I then don'see a problem, '''especially''' as the editor has privacy concerns. It should fall under ] - ] <sup>]</sup> 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] is presently behaving as a disruptive editor at ]. After lengthy dialogue, ] has decided that my pov is not "normal" and that we may be approaching a permenent lack of consensus. What is meant is that Silly rabbit is no longer willing to discuss the article or work for consensus. Silly rabbit agreed to mediation, but has since been unwilling to participate. I percieve the reluctance to be pov-based. Silly rabbit (on my discussion page) today suggested that I outline my concerns here | |||
| Today Silly rabbit reverted a Capital Punishment block of text that had been challenged as violating ] ] and ]. The central contentious issue is if there are reliable sources that support allegations of human rights denial within the US. Editors insist that human rights are universal (which is true philosophically if not legally) and for this reason no sources are necessary. There likely is consensus as claimed (except for me) that reliable sources are not required because human rights are universal. They incorrectly state that I insist on limiting sources to US court decisions. While these would be excellent sources that I have encouraged, I would accept any reliable source. One that stated that universal human rights apply to the US would work. Anyway, enough about the content issues. | |||
| I have tried to make diffs, but cannot find any "radio buttons". The revert page history and the talk on Capital Punishment, and Silly rabbit's discussion page (including material deleted today) are relevant. | |||
| I claim that Silly rabbit has repeatedly violated policy, is engaged in disruptive behavior, and should be banned from that article for one day. Silly rabbit is an excellent editor that apparently does not believe that material challenged as OR can only be restored if a reliable source is provided. Hopefully some minimal administrative signal will persuade Silly rabbit to resume productive editing for this article. ] (]) 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This is at least the third time this month that Raggz has made a spurious complaint here. He falsely claimed that Luke0101 was editing without communicating, then he told a bunch of outright lies about me. | |||
| :Raggz is a shameless liar and I'm astounded that he's still allowed to edit here. ] (]) 03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is that-a-way. Please lleave the rethoric behind when you leave. ]] 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::For the record, ] is not disruptive and ] is correct in labeling Raggz's complaints as spurious. —] | ] 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Page histories after a split == | |||
| I was wondering if there was any way to restore the page histories to ] and ] after they were - probably rightly - split from ]. It may not be obvious to new users to look to the disambiguation page history to find the development of the (now) two articles. ] (]) 01:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It's possible (but sometimes very difficult) to split a page history; there's no easy way to ''duplicate'' history, however. It's probably significantly easier to post a link on each article's talk page, linking back to the original page history -- this should be required for GFDL compliance, in any case. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the advice, I've linked both talk pages to the history. ] (]) 13:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Database glitch, vandalism, or am I going mad? == | |||
| Pardon me if this is the wrong place to ask this question, but I'm seeing the weirdest thing on ]: at the end of the article, the complete text from another article on ] is somehow being appended. But I can't find anything in the code that's making it happen -- it's as if it came out of thin air. Even weirder, if I look at the current revision directly, via the history page, it's fine. | |||
| I also tried making a minor edit to the Terrell Croft page to see if the link between the two was dynamic; it isn't -- the content appended to the Robert Jarvik article stayed the same. | |||
| Is this a database glitch, some sort of really weird vandalism, or am I just being dumb about something? ] (]) 03:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like there was a problem with {{tl|US-engineer-stub}} that appears to have been fixed. -- ] ]</sup> 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: It needed a ]. ] 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Cool, thanks for the info and help! ] (]) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Petition and emails == | |||
| A user created a petition here ] with many emails listed. Ignoring the petition issue, are there any privacy/spam concerns to so many emails being listed on a high-traffic site? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've mangled the emails slightly (to hopefully reduce spam concerns) and slipped them into a navframe (to hopefully avoid cluttering the visible page). Feel free to tinker beyond that. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 07:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've removed the whole post, it's unverifiable anyway so means nothing, plus with privacy concerns. ] 07:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit speed == | |||
| {{resolved|no problems --].].] 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| Could another admin look this over and see if this user is currently editing at a speed that may indicate the use of an unauthorized bot? It seems a little suspect to me, but I may be paranoid. I'd like an outside opinion from an experienced admin. | |||
| *{{userlinks|Lord Uniscorn}} | |||
| Given that its a new user, and an apparent SPA; only interested in tagging comic book articles as unreferenced, this caught my attention, and given the speed, it looks suspicious. Or maybe I am crazy... --].].] 07:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :No I believe you are correct, this account's rate is six edits per minute, that is a edit every ten seconds, its quite hard for a user to do so by hand, (search+adding template+repetitive summary=more than ten seconds) even if he is pasting the edit summaries he must be writting the templates by hand and unless he is working out of a category or list the search pattern is just too quick. - ] 08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I mean, there is one stretch (7:35 UTC) where he does 13 edits in one minute. That's less than 5 seconds per edit. So, what should be done? I am not sure how to handle this, a more experienced admin may want to cover this? --].].] 08:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is a interesting aspect of his pattern and that is that those edits that appear to be made by hand are at a very slower rate, to a maximum of two per minute. - ] 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: The way bot policy is implemented/enforced now, edit speed is a fairly minor consideration. A script with manual approval of each edit can reasonably get up to 12 edits per minute, and manual scripts, especially for small jobs, can run without approval. Only automatic bots strictly speaking *require* approval, but there is no way to differentiate an automatic bot from a manual script by contributions except if the operator doesn't stop or respond to queries, or the edit rate is far too high for any manual approval. The fundamental question is whether there are any technical or policy problems with the edits. Bot edits, even manual, must have consensus. Adding a small number of cleanup templates, while perhaps annoying, is probably not against policy. Doing this on a large scale could be disruption. ] 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Define "Large scale". There are two streches that concern me, from 7:34-7:38 there are 24 edits, and earlier from 7:24-7:25 there are 16 edits. Also, the issue of the single-mindedness of these edits is sort of ]y as well... --].].] 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I believe that 16 edits per minute is a too much even for a manual script, there must be a semi-automated script somewhere in there. - ] 08:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: If a script pauses for a Yes or No for each edit, whether you call the script "manual" or "assisted" or "semi-automatic", it's not an automatic script. Are there any actual concerns with the edits? ] 08:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| One edit every ten seconds for a group of 41 articles? I can edit that fast with nothing more than a tabbed web browser, and have done on occasion, editing and repeatedly previewing all articles in their individual tabs, and then hitting save across all of them in quick succession once I'm finally done. It's not the rapid process that the speed of the saves at the very end leads one to think it to be. ☺ ] (]) 13:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. I do this as well. Once way to avoid people questioning the speed of the edits is to add to the edit summaries a link to a user subpage explaining this. But that shouldn't be required. Simply asking the user should get an explanation. Having said that, controversial edits should be spread out. No need to overwhelm the system with those. ] (]) 14:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough. That's why I asked for additional comment. Looks like there was nothing to be worried about. --].].] 16:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bizarre award giving pattern== | |||
| Ok I just received a barnstar form user ] who is new to the project, I usually don't accept awards from single-purpouse accounts based on past experience with sock-trolls, I tried to explain this to the user but he keeps readding it, he said that he is a student from Africa who is new to English and that this is somehow a request from a teacher, can somebody familiar with the various African dialects try to have a talk with him? I have tried to ask him nicelly not to add it but its 3:00 a.m. and I'm getting grouchy, I wouldn't call it harrassment (although it may be trolling coming from a sock of another user) but this is seriously getting ridiculous, has there ever been a presedent? - ] 08:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I left what I hope is a clear and stern, yet gentle warning about continuing to give you the barnstar. If this does not stop him, he may be blocked for repeated disruption. --].].] 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uh oh: . He doesn't appear to get it. I left another warning... --].].] 08:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ouch! sorry for that, I just couldn't do it, moral dilema, I didn't want to bite him, but he seriously makes it a bit hard with the persistence and all (maybe Jimbo can receive the award, he receives like ten of these per day so maybe he won't notice it ;-) 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::No problem man. I have just directed him to leave it on his own talk page. For the record, I have NO IDEA what his motivation is. What teacher gives assignments like "Give a random user at Misplaced Pages a barnstar?" This dude is just WEIRD if you ask me. If he adds the award to his own talk page, then lets just let him be... --].].] 08:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Maybe this will satisfy him: --].].] 08:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Assigned to do a ], maybe? ] 08:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::He explained that it had something to do with my contribution in articles of countries outside the US , so the assigment may have something to do with Wiki's international scope? - ] 08:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::My hypothesis is that he's some kid who was caught vandalising Misplaced Pages by his teacher, and she, as a punishment, demanded that he do something positive instead of negative to make up for it. How does that sound? --].].] 08:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Probable, he says that his teacher wants to see it on Monday, that gives me an idea... - ] 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Er, "somebody familiar with the various African dialects"?!? ] (]) 09:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The guy said he was African, he couldn't understand English and was asking for help, what is so strange about that? do you have an idea of how many languages there are in Africa? - ] 09:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Much too many for anyone to be familiar with even a fraction; but I'm glad to see we're now accepting them as languages, not "dialects", presumably of "African". ] (]) 09:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::A dialect is a manner of speech charasteristic to a region or a group of people, every country has a wide variety of dialects, thus my sentence was correct, anyways you are making a storm in a glass of water. - ] 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request User blocking form using Twinkle== | |||
| Please see here; ]. My comment, here; | |||
| The Misplaced Pages needs to ask itself whether this is rally the sort of behaviour it wishes to condone and whether it is conducive to encouraging collaboration. Thank you. --] (]) 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Please provide ] of this user misusing TWINKLE in order that we may investigate. ➔ ''']''' with my innocent hand on my heart 13:45, 25 January 2008 (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) | |||
| == "fake move attack" comes back again == | |||
| :My comment seems broken. The wikitext is <syntaxhighlight lang=""> | |||
| ] 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. | |||
| </syntaxhighlight>For me, and in a private tab, the piped link does not render, and I just see <syntaxhighlight lang=""> | |||
| 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. | |||
| </syntaxhighlight> <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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 == | |||
| *(See Archive118 Please) This guy comes back again, he uses ip ] to add fake information into ], thanks for giving a hand for this.] (]) 13:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{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. | |||
| :User hasn't vandalized in 3 hours. I have issued a final warning. If you notice the user has come back and continues to vandalize, please report to ]. Thanks.-] </sup>]] 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : 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". ] ] 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Merry Christmas! == | |||
| == Difficult request for unblock == | |||
| {{Atop|result=Lovely.--] (]) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)<br>Thank you, MolecularPilot. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| 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) | |||
| {{discussion top}} | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == suggestion == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jim_Burton#Appeal | |||
| {{Atop|This complaint has no merit.--] (]) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| Suggestion of temporary block of User:ActivelyDisinterested | |||
| This user requests unblock. It would be difficult for one admin to handle this request without carrying a heavy burden. If unblocked, there will be debate. If block is kept, why is one admin's opinion sufficient as the request would be removed from the unblock request board and possibly not seen by anyone except those who watchlist this user (which may represent a biased statistical sample)? Therefore, I am seeking AN advice. | |||
| As user add incorrect information, comment wrong behavior edit with not reliable sources. | |||
| Thanks ] (]) 15:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| A possible outcome would be that there will be record of what the community thinks. This could act as an advisory to ArbCom. It could simplify things for ArbCom. As always, be kind and not bitey. Note that I have not researched the editor's edits. I don't favor pedophile advocacy as I understand it and certainly not pedophilia. ] (]) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (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. ] ] 16:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This needs to go through ArbCom, from what I recall, this was specifically stated to the user when they got blocked. I'm going to decline this per long standing precedent. 16:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :You are required to notify any editor that you report to this noticeboard. I have notified ActivelyDisinterested for you this time. ] ] 16:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I left this message on DerryGer120, pointing out that their edit to WT:V had removed comments by other editors. I ] that this was just a mistake. After DerryGer120's denial I followed up with this message to explain how the edit history works to show them making the edit, and again explaining that I assumed that this wasn't their intention. | |||
| :I don't have anything to add, DerryGer120 is still a ] and I take no issue with them raising this here. If anyone has any thoughts on how I could have worded my message any better I'm always open to suggestions, communication online can easily be misconstrued. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{Abot}} | |||
| == Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? == | |||
| :It strikes me from the unblock reason that Jim hasn't changed at all. Surely advocating the right of pedophiles to self-identify in such a vehement manner on a publicly watched page like Jimbo's, basically saying he wouldn't take no for an answer, as well as editing the main space in a very POV SPA way, explains the block. If he were to come back admitting it isn't okay to defend endlessly in wikipedia the right of pedophiles to self-identify (see ]) and that he wanted to edit non-pedophile articles I would strongly support lifting the ban (which is against disruptive editing, not t e editor himself) but Jim appears to want to be unblocked to pursue exactly the same path as before. There is an extremely heated debate at ] right now and unblocking Jim and then having him rushing off to participate in said debate would be extremely unhelpful to the heat in that debate, indeed I wonder if it is that debate that has inspired Jim to ask to be unblocked at this particular time. Thanks, ] 16:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI?| ] (]/]) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Vanished users holding user rights as of 25-12-2024 == | |||
| ::This thread can be closed or blanked now, the unblock request has been declined by Ryan Postlethwaite. ] (]) 17:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. The following vanished users hold the mentioned user rights, some of them are also globally locked. I guess their rights should be removed? | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| *Thread closed as matter is resolved. Unblock denied. The rest of this debate can happen elsewhere. --].].] 17:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| !Username!!Last edit!!User rights | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{Noping|Vanished user 1324354}}||20241220184536||autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user 752595fd077b7cc069aced5f592aa938}}||20241122065248||pending changes reviewer, rollbacker | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user eb1ee62d1149327ec5c6d6ee42f08205}}||20241113070034||autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user e2bceb05e0c43dd19cc50e3291d6fac5}}||20241005122230||autopatrolled | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user 0e40c0e52322c484364940c7954c93d8}}||20241003115931||ipblock-exempt | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user 6907cec52323a7d54b85dc472c6b6619}}||20240501040754||ipblock-exempt, pending changes reviewer | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{Noping|Renamed user tk7QEzr9HZuLSk}}||20210417225619||autopatrolled | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{Noping|Renamed user v08an9234vu}}||20191001201326||rollbacker | |||
| |- | |||
| |{{Noping|Renamed user efB5zCgPvkrQ7C}}||20091006044722||autopatrolled, rollbacker | |||
| |} | |||
| Thanks! -- ] (]) 08:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :We typically don't remove advanced privileges from editors that are blocked, globally or locally, unless they are admins. I can't point to an RFC where this decision was arrived at, I just know that this has been the custom in the past. Personally, I don't care if this practice changes but I think this change is worth a discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Old MFD == | |||
| ::I'm not sure what proportion of vanished editors ever return, but lots of blocked editors do, and it makes sense to me that we only remove userrights that people need to lose and that we do it when they are blocked or vanished. Take Autopatrolled as an example, plenty of content creators who get this are people who don't always "play nice". Making such people autopatrolled doesn't just make new page patrol more efficient, it also reduces the risk of friction between patrollers and these editors. It can also help if you need to know how an article got through NPP, and I suspect more commonly, think of the scenario where a major contributor to an article you are looking at is now blocked; If the blocking admin has left them with either reviewer or Autopatrolled status you can be pretty sure that their block isn't over copyvio or some other content issue. Conversely if they've lost those rights you might want to be suspicious of their edits. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 10:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This makes a lot of sense. They can always be restored if it is ever appropriate. ] ] 12:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *5 of these are vanished under the new process, and there is no way for them to return, I've removed from those. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:*I've got no concerns about de-grouping the others just to not pollute statistics. I run across these from time to time when doing group inactivity cleanups, and have removed without any complaints then. This is certainly differnt from a normal "blocked" user, especially as vanishing has evolved to be one-way. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == I would like to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned user Grundle2600 == | |||
| We have an item relating to Current Events subportals on ] that was started on January 13, almost two weeks ago. Anyone want to close it? ] (] • ]) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{atop|1=Thanks DoubleGrazing. Noting else to be done here. -- ] (]) 10:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Articles for deletion is for deletion == | |||
| I am coming there to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned ]. | |||
| * ] | |||
| I've explained our dispute resolution processes at length to {{admin|Trialsanderrors}} three times, now, once in the discussion closure, and twice on my talk page. They were also outlined at ], by an editor that grasped them correctly and that not only wasn't even an administrator but that wasn't even an editor with an account. Full marks go to {{user|81.104.39.63}}. Somone else please explain ], ], the differences between protection and deletion, ], and taking editing disputes to article talk pages, and how protection is involved in that, to ], and re-close the wholly inappropriate AFD discussion once more. I'm obviously not getting through on my own. ] (]) 18:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Could you provide more background. I'd like to help out, but the AFD noted above, while his editorializing on said page seems a bit annoying, I don't see anything further. Could you provide additional difs, since this seems like a problem with some history. --].].] 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **See the discussion at ]. I'd appreciate the input of other administrators. I'm now up to five explanations of what our editing dispute resolution processes are. Ironically, I'm actually exemplifying the dispute resolution step of ''requesting outside editors to review and give input to a talk page discussion'', the very processes for which I'm trying to point out, right here. ] (]) 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Seems like there was wheel warring on multiple sides on this. IMO, Trialsanderrors should not have edited any closure for a discussion which they started. It would have been better to contact the closing admin. The problem stems from a DRV closure that Trialsanderrors closed as "Content discussion moved to ]". So this issue is a bit complicated, in that Uncle G's speedy closure of the AFD is going against Trialsanderrors' admin action of DRV closure (and Trialsanderrors' revert of the closure went against Uncle G's admin action of closing the AFD). There is no reason for either party to have reverted as many times as they did. However, it seems like the matter is settled for now. The discussion is closed, and it seems like Trialsanderrors is content with the state of things. On the originating issue put before DRV, I would comment that DRV does not seem to be the forum to handle something that wasn't ever party to a deletion discussion or accompanying admin action (and therefore, an AFD should not have been started to solve a content dispute for an article that wasn't being considered for deletion). Just my take on the matter. It looks like things are settled so I'm not sure there needs to be any further action on anyone's part.-] </sup>]] 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **I reverted exactly ''once'', and then came here to ask for third opinions. The other reversions were not mine. ] (]) 20:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It has been 14 years since my "indefinite" ban, and I just wanted to see if that's long enough for me to be able to openly edit the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit. | |||
| *There was no wheel warring, although that term is ambiguous and annoying, but I'd agree with Uncle G that the nomination should have been closed (claims of procedural nominations notwithstanding) and that reverting his closure multiple times was absolutely the wrong step to take. <sup>]]</sup> 19:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **You might find that I did not ask Uncle G to reopen the discussion, solely to correct the closing statement. As I pointed out elsewhere, I routinely move discussions popping up on ] to the related deletion forums if no accusation of admin wrongdoing is involved, even if the possibility of deletion is remote. The point of the exercise is to establish a clear outcome that can be referred to in the future. The accusations in Uncle G's closing statement were therefore completely off the mark. I have no editorial interest in the article and therefore can't be "Forum Shopping", which requires that I look for a forum that creates an outcome that is favorable to me. I would have been perfectly happy with a snowball keep under the current situation, but Uncle G decided to fly off the handle instead. ~ ] (]) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I have made several hundred edits with this particular account over the last several months, without any problems other than a few very minor messages on my talk page. | |||
| :::No, I don't think you were forum shopping. I think you nominated an article for deletion as part of your closing of the DRV, which was an error if an actual deletion was not being contemplated (aside from delete and redirect, which is license issues). The next error was reverting the closure in an attempt to either (a) reopen the discussion or (b) change the closing rationale to something that didn't criticize you. This is for two clear reasons: (1) You were the nominator, and not an uninvolved admin and (2) reversion of a non-NPA criticism of you in a closing rationale is ill-considered. Only your last edit left Uncle G's closing rationale, struck it out and replaced it with yours. The other reversions were reversions - i.e. reopening the AfD. <sup>]]</sup> 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah, I'm going to continue to revert spurious closures when I nominate articles at AfD as a closer of DRV discussion, because I act as an admin, on behalf of the community, and not as an editor, because of an editorial opinion I hold, after I asked to closer to do it him/herself. Again, if there are question whether I'm qualified to close DRV discussions ] is the right forum, but as long as my overall competence is not in dispute, I will continue to enforce relisting decisions made at DRV, including my own. ~ ] (]) 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| If you ban this account, I will understand. | |||
| == Help with rangeblock == | |||
| If you don't ban this account, then at least I can be open about who I really am. | |||
| {{discussion top}} | |||
| {{resolved|mangojuice got it. --].].] 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)}} | |||
| OK. So I am a bit of a newish admin, and some of the more techincal aspects of autoblocks and rangeblocks still confuse me. This user: appears to have been caught as collateral damage in a range block. I am inclined to believe they had nothing at all to do with the problems that caused the range block. Can a more experienced admin look into this and try to fix it? Thanks a bunch! --].].] 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The block is on 91.108.192.0/18, and it's a {{tl|checkuserblock}} which means no mortal admin should be undoing it without consulting the checkuser. The user is currently being advised to request an account, so there's little more to be done. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I appreciate all of the feedback between you and Mangojuice (who has contacted the user and is arranging a username)... --].].] 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| ] (]) 09:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == blpdispute tag being added to ] == | |||
| :This confession will lead to your block. Why don't you file an unblock request on your original account? It is more likely to have success than coming to AN, confessing, and hoping no one will care. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 10:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your comment. | |||
| ::I'm willing to get blocked. If that's what their policy is, then so be it. | |||
| The anon editor ] has been repeatedly adding the <nowiki>{{blpdispute}}</nowiki> tag to this article. This is not a 3RR issue as the reverts did not all occur in a 24-hour period. However, the anon editor has added the tag repeatedly despite being warned by ] that this is not appropriate unless the editor states on the talk page what the dispute is about. The anon editor has not clearly stated what they think the unsourced biographical claims in the article are, but rather, has made personal attacks on the ], and has acknowledged their own lack of NPOV in the same discussion. occurred after the anon user received a clear warning on their talk page. ] (]) 20:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I warned them one last time. They appear to at least be using the talk page. However, the continued use of the tag, given the disagreement with it, would be disruptive. If ANY tags get added to this article again, someone will block them. --].].] 20:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did state the reasons on the talk page, and I apologize if my last comment was taken as a personal attack, but you'll have to agree that this article has issues. You may say it's just my opinion, but this article reads like blatant spam to me. We all know that homeopathy is controversial; and as with many other disciplines considered to be pseudoscientific, almost anyone can claim to be an expert on the field and get a reputation as such, so this is not just my opinion. Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but considering the lack of scientific evidence supporting homeopathy, how do we know this person is not a quack, or self-deluded? I really don't think this article meets the notability criteria. If you say the tag is inappropriate then, what is the procedure to follow in this situation? ] (]) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You wrote, and I quote, "Homeopathy sucks!!!". Now you wish to be taken seriously? ] (]) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) First recognize that ]. It doesn't matter if she's a quack or self-deluded, so long as we only republish what has been written in ], and add none of our ]. As for the tagging, firstly you shouldn't add tags that don't apply (the tag you've been adding is for articles that contain ]). Secondly, you shouldn't be repeating an edit when multiple users have disagreed with you. The process to follow when someone reverts you is to list your grievances on the article's talk page, and file a ] if you fail to achieve a ]. If you feel the article should be deleted, you create an account and open an ] (or kindly ask a registered user to do this for you). If that's the case, you should provide a reasonable explanation as to how she fails ]. Appearing to be promotional, or appearing to be written in a non-neutral ] is not in and of itself a reason to delete an article. ] (]) 21:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages claims to be the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit. | |||
| == Create Account == | |||
| ::] (]) 10:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I'm not sure to be on the correct site? But I'm ] on german Misplaced Pages. I tryed to create an account at en:wiki with the same name. ] seems to be not reserved on any other user. But I can't create an account with that user name. On one try an advice appeared to contact an admin. Can you help me to crate an account with my uncreative username? Thx ]<sup>]</sup> 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :...but before doing so, you may want to think of a convincing explanation for the history of socking ]. -- ] (]) 10:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes. I hope they see all those great edits I made with my sock puppet accounts. ] (]) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Lots more at https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Grundle2600 | |||
| ::I am proud of those edits. | |||
| :The username you want ''has'' been registered, it merely hasn't made any edits. The official way to make this request is through ]. ] (]) 22:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::] (]) 10:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you, I'll try. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I can't be sure whether you really are Grundle2600's sock, or just want everyone to think so, but either way it seems you're effectively asking to be blocked. {{done}} | |||
| :::(Obviously others should feel free to unblock, if this turned out not to be warranted.) -- ] (]) 10:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
Latest revision as of 12:51, 25 December 2024
Notices of interest to administrators| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles and content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
- 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 discussionOpen 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?
| 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 | |||||||||
| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 19 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 40 | 49 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 25 sockpuppet investigations
- 14 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 8 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 42 elapsed requested moves
- 2 Pages at move review
- 27 requested closures
- 48 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Something about mimicry and flattery, I guess? I'm curious to hear @ZebulonMorn's answer, too. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add
- 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)
- ZebulonMorn, can you respond to Tamzin's questions above? Spicy (talk) 21:44, 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)
- 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)
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)
- @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)
- 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)
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.
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)
- 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 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)
- 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 think that's hardly adequate per Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:38, 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)
- More importantly, does Stuartyeates have a list of them somewhere? 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 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)
- 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)
- @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)
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 of
tf 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)
- (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)
- 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:
- This is not true. jp×g🗯️ 04:22, 18 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)
- There'sn't. jp×g🗯️ 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
_o_ | <--- Spider-Man / \
This does not mean that the ASCII character set itself infringes copyright, nor that all ASCII sequences infringe copyright. jp×g🗯️ 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I have informed the education noticeboard of this discussion. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:
I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.
However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.
Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:
That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.
- Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like
On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.
, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
I will never use multiple accounts anymore
and that he wants tomake constructive content
would indicate thatthe purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)- For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think saying that
- But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
too focused on quantity, rather than quality
, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused onmass-creating non-notable stubs
. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- And he admits that he was
- S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- What?
- Thanks for asking. Yes I would. However, you've misrepresented what happened. Again I will assume it is an simple mistake, but
- Ah I'd no idea you'd changed your name. Secretlondon (talk) 13:19, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The problem with said policy being the text
- @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)
- 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
JSSBeeb. 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)
- My user talk is hardly not public. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 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)
- (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, sayingOnce 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 justificationYou 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.
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
-- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)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.
- 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:
- 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. — 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)
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)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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- {{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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. El Beeblerino 06:54, 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 pingedwouldcould 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)
- @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)
- I fail to see how
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? CNC (talk) 18:20, 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)
- @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
- Or, better,
- It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged.
- 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)
- 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:RESPONSIBILITYWP: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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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: Why not tag the page for deletion, then warn the user? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 19 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 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. El Beeblerino 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically
- 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)
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)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.- For reference, see this old community wishlist entry. Graham87 (talk) 06:28, 20 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
andinterrelated, 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
andinterrelated
. Levivich (talk) 23:29, 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
- 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 that, e.g.
- 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)
- @331dot Please familiarize yourself with WP:BATTLEGROUND. 78.173.128.237 (talk) 16:28, 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)
- 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)
- "
- I'm sorry but it's hard to be told I'm doing things that I'm not doing.
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 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 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- ??? 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- I've turned it into subsections Fram (talk) 12:00, 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)
- Perhaps the scope of WP:AARV could be expanded to include such questions? 331dot (talk) 13:25, 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)
- I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? Fram (talk) 15:41, 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)
- 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)
@331dot: it turns out you were perfectly correct with this block, and at the same time not allowed by policy to convincingly explain it, which must be frustrating. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to the others who took a look at this one. I'll not bother you about similar ticket-based blocks in the future, as it is clear that I can't independently assess them, the one example I used was a perfect block, and you may not explain it in any detail anyway. Fram (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
This was closed with the comment "Withdrawn by OP as explanation was deemed suitable. If anyone wants to harangue the multitudes, you may revert my close. Andre🚐 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)" but this is incorrect. While the second case was convincingly explained, the User talk:PaulSem case was not withdrawn and was a bad block and bad declined unblocked. Fram (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Request for closure review
I would be grateful for a review of the decision to close the discussion at Talk:You Like It Darker in favour of merging the article Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker".
The proposal to merge was raised by Voorts on 30 May 2024, the day after the article was created, at which point the article looked like this. Subsequently, there were three responses, two (including myself) against merging and one for merging (not including Voorts' "vote" as nominator). The final "vote" was cast on 3 June, at which point the article looked like this. The discussion was subsequently dormant for a few months. On 1 October 2024, AirshipJungleman29 opted not to close the discussion. On 27 October 2024, Compassionate727 performed a non-admin closure on the proposal to merge in favour of merging, at which point the article looked like this.
I subsequently raised this with Compassionate727 who declined to revise their decision (entirely within their rights).
I am therefore bringing this to the noticeboard to respectfully request a review of the decision to close in favour of merging. The main points I would flag are:
- I think the verdict that there was a "rough consensus to merge" is questionable.
- The proposal to merge, and subsequent discussion, date from immediately after the article's creation and while the article was in the process of being expanded and improved. The latest vote for merging is from 31 May 2024, and the article has been significantly expanded since then. My view would be that, in light of the changes made to the article since 31 May, it would be reasonable to revisit the matter to consider if any of the arguments in favour of merging have been satisfactorily addressed. In effect, the decision to merge does not give weight to any improvements to the article since May 2024.
- On a practical level, it is unclear how the article could realistically be merged into You Like It Darker without running into WP:UNDUE or purging the vast majority of content. The article has not been merged over two months following the closure.
If the settled view of the community is to merge the articles on the basis of the discussion in May-June then I will of course accept that, but on this occasion I would respectfully ask that some more consideration be given as to the best course of action. Thank you. McPhail (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and reopen Not a single comment was made after the request was posted to WP:PAM, and, excluding the nom's !vote, there is one proponent of the merge, who cited a concern that appears to have been addressed. There should be further discussion here. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse: The sources added after the merge proposal opened are all about the book. The notability of the book cannot be inherited by the short story. Until there are several independent, reliable sources that establish the story is notable, this should be merged. The due weight issue can be resolved by cutting out the extensive plot summary and summarizing the reviews within the broader context of the book itself. Why not work on getting the book article completed instead of myopically focusing on one short story? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn and Reopen. There's no consensus to do anything there, let alone merge. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just commenting, because I didn't receive the expected notification, that I am aware of this discussion. I may respond in substance later. —Compassionate727 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I had to take some time to remind myself of why I handled this how I did. Basically, because it was proposed for merging because of notability concerns rather than anything in WP:MERGEREASON, I treated this discussion as an AfD in another venue. The way AfD works, in practice, is that the subject is presumed to not be notable until it is demonstrated that it is—which, if the subject is indeed notable, is rarely difficult to do. As multiple participants observed, no evidence was provided at any point in the discussion that this short story meets the general notability guideline; indeed, opponents of the merge didn't even bother trying to argue that it does. Instead, they tried to fall back on WP:NBOOK#5, but again, they failed to provide any evidence that King's corpus is a
common subject of academic study
, and Οἶδα provided a reasonable argument that it probably isn't. The notability of the story not being demonstrated, I found a consensus to not retain the article, which in this case meant merging.I would find it idiosyncratic for the result to be overturned to no consensus because of the discussion's low participation, which is entirely characteristic of merge discussions. I would find it vexing if my closure was merely vacated and the discussion reopened, as participants here are currently suggesting, because unless they want to join the discussion, doing so is quite unlikely to actually garner additional participation and will instead merely stall the consensus-building process. In any case, with notability still not being demonstrated, I'm guessing that a "no consensus" outcome will merely cause the conversation to move to AfD, where I expect the article will be deleted unless new evidence emerges. —Compassionate727 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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
- 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 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.
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)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.
- From the article.
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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- No, El Beeblerino. It is a follow-up on 331dot's wording of
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 😵 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm simply describing WP:ROPE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 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)
- "looking not to unblock people" etc. was in response to alien's point, not yours. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Thebiguglyalien: Wait. You endorse unblocks that lead to disruption? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
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. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is an appropriate relist since additional discussion might lead to consensus on a new title or enough options for a bartender's close. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
"Early" closes at AfD
The closing instructions at AfD currently says A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours).
I have noticed that several discussions each day are being closed early. Most of these are less than 30 minutes early but I have seen up to 2 hours early of their 7 days/168 hours. If articles are being closed as keep, I think that's arguably defensible and relisting early when it's obvious no consensus will be reached definitely makes sense, but I have a harder time with deletions. Truthfully, I don't understand the rush, especially as most (if not all - I've only spot checked this) are being done with XfDCloser which warns you if you're going early - that is these admins are making a conscious to close early. Since we're talking a handful minutes it likely doesn't make a difference in the outcome. But for me the instructions imply closing before 168 hours should be more a IAR situation rather than several discussions each day and multiple admins doing it. I thought I would bring it here for discussion to see if it's just me or if it bothers anyone else. And if it is just me maybe we adjust the instruction (or maybe I'm just making normally out to be a stronger prohibition than it's meant to be). I'm specifically not naming any of the admins or linking to any early closes as I'm not looking to get anyone "in trouble", just trying to see where the community stands, but obviously all of this can be observed by anyone else who wants to go through the day's closes at AfD. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't overly matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. TheSandDoctor 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours since last relist. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, TheSandDoctor, there's no requirement to wait another week following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. SerialNumber54129 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129, Vanamonde93, and Daniel: Thank you all for the insight on this. I've just always operated under the assumption/understanding that relists were for another full 7 day cycle as if the AfD was just (re-)posted. I'll adjust accordingly. Thank you! TheSandDoctor 00:44, 25 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
On replacing crap lead image for Sophia Loren
I have indefinitely blocked Light show for this latest knowing violation of their topic ban, as noted in the discussion below. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As a topic-banned editor, although no one knows why, am I allowed to request that a piece of crap photo of Sophia Loren be replaced by one worthy of her stature? I assume I can't request it on her talk page. There seem to be over a 100 of her on the commons, 99% of which are better than the one someone stuck on her bio. Try this one, for starters, which shows her at the peak of her career. An editor a few months ago requested someone "replace that crap crop" of Maggie Smith on my talk page, which was accomplished.
Top Awards: Academy Awards: Best Actress: her the first actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language performance. Honorary Award: (1991) for her contributions to world cinema. Golden Globes: Cecil B. DeMille Award: (1995) for outstanding contributions to the entertainment world. Multiple Golden Globe nominations, winning Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical for The Millionairess. Cannes Film Festival: Best Actress: Two Women (1961). BAFTA: Best Foreign Actress: Two Women (1962). Grammy Award: Best Spoken Word Album for Children: Peter and the Wolf (1981), shared with other performers. 7 Best Actress Awards, including for Two Women and A Special Day. Golden Lion Award for Lifetime Achievement (Venice Film Festival): (1998). Presidential Medal of Freedom (USA): (2019), awarded for her cultural contributions. Career Overview: Number of Films: Over 90 films over a 70-year career. Light show (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is the reason for the topic ban. It's logged here. Reason: IDHT+disruptive edits. AKAF (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that you've been blocked six times for breaching the topic ban, I would have thought it would have been clear why it exists by now. Not only that, but this request is also a violation of the topic ban, which you should have been aware of per this discussion from last year. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think one is allowed to use the AN board, to request a proxy edit to an area one's t-banned from. GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- No. JJPMaster (she/they) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Light show: It is concerning that you do not understand the reasons for your TBAN and that you have once again violated it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{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)
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 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 articleIn 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)
- Just spot-checking here, the use of
- 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)
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)
- Yeah, that too. Sorry for the inconvenience. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Thanks. Have verified that this is an Armenian nationalistic claim:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione
DONE This discussion has been closed as keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JJPMaster (she/they) 05:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Someone please close this already as "keep", or "no consensus". Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am involved, but I believe that any outcome other than "keep" would be highly controversial. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't it too early? -- asilvering (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- It's still not clear to me how to fix this. Liz 05:54, 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)
- Fixed now (thanks Daveosaurus). - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:35, 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 seeUser: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)
- Thanks! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
|
Merry Christmas!
Lovely.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Thank you, MolecularPilot. Liz 20:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.suggestion
This complaint has no merit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
- You are required to notify any editor that you report to this noticeboard. I have notified ActivelyDisinterested for you this time. Schazjmd (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I left this message on DerryGer120, pointing out that their edit to WT:V had removed comments by other editors. I assumed that this was just a mistake. After DerryGer120's denial I followed up with this message to explain how the edit history works to show them making the edit, and again explaining that I assumed that this wasn't their intention.
- I don't have anything to add, DerryGer120 is still a new user and I take no issue with them raising this here. If anyone has any thoughts on how I could have worded my message any better I'm always open to suggestions, communication online can easily be misconstrued. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI?
Moved to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? – voorts (talk/contributions) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Vanished users holding user rights as of 25-12-2024
Hi. The following vanished users hold the mentioned user rights, some of them are also globally locked. I guess their rights should be removed?
| Username | Last edit | User rights |
|---|---|---|
| Vanished user 1324354 | 20241220184536 | autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer |
| DoneRenamed user 752595fd077b7cc069aced5f592aa938 |
20241122065248 | pending changes reviewer, rollbacker |
| DoneRenamed user eb1ee62d1149327ec5c6d6ee42f08205 |
20241113070034 | autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer |
| DoneRenamed user e2bceb05e0c43dd19cc50e3291d6fac5 |
20241005122230 | autopatrolled |
| DoneRenamed user 0e40c0e52322c484364940c7954c93d8 |
20241003115931 | ipblock-exempt |
| DoneRenamed user 6907cec52323a7d54b85dc472c6b6619 |
20240501040754 | ipblock-exempt, pending changes reviewer |
| Renamed user tk7QEzr9HZuLSk | 20210417225619 | autopatrolled |
| Renamed user v08an9234vu | 20191001201326 | rollbacker |
| Renamed user efB5zCgPvkrQ7C | 20091006044722 | autopatrolled, rollbacker |
Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- We typically don't remove advanced privileges from editors that are blocked, globally or locally, unless they are admins. I can't point to an RFC where this decision was arrived at, I just know that this has been the custom in the past. Personally, I don't care if this practice changes but I think this change is worth a discussion. Liz 08:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what proportion of vanished editors ever return, but lots of blocked editors do, and it makes sense to me that we only remove userrights that people need to lose and that we do it when they are blocked or vanished. Take Autopatrolled as an example, plenty of content creators who get this are people who don't always "play nice". Making such people autopatrolled doesn't just make new page patrol more efficient, it also reduces the risk of friction between patrollers and these editors. It can also help if you need to know how an article got through NPP, and I suspect more commonly, think of the scenario where a major contributor to an article you are looking at is now blocked; If the blocking admin has left them with either reviewer or Autopatrolled status you can be pretty sure that their block isn't over copyvio or some other content issue. Conversely if they've lost those rights you might want to be suspicious of their edits. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- This makes a lot of sense. They can always be restored if it is ever appropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what proportion of vanished editors ever return, but lots of blocked editors do, and it makes sense to me that we only remove userrights that people need to lose and that we do it when they are blocked or vanished. Take Autopatrolled as an example, plenty of content creators who get this are people who don't always "play nice". Making such people autopatrolled doesn't just make new page patrol more efficient, it also reduces the risk of friction between patrollers and these editors. It can also help if you need to know how an article got through NPP, and I suspect more commonly, think of the scenario where a major contributor to an article you are looking at is now blocked; If the blocking admin has left them with either reviewer or Autopatrolled status you can be pretty sure that their block isn't over copyvio or some other content issue. Conversely if they've lost those rights you might want to be suspicious of their edits. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- 5 of these are vanished under the new process, and there is no way for them to return, I've removed from those. — xaosflux 12:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've got no concerns about de-grouping the others just to not pollute statistics. I run across these from time to time when doing group inactivity cleanups, and have removed without any complaints then. This is certainly differnt from a normal "blocked" user, especially as vanishing has evolved to be one-way. — xaosflux 12:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned user Grundle2600
Thanks DoubleGrazing. Noting else to be done here. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am coming there to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned User:Grundle2600.
It has been 14 years since my "indefinite" ban, and I just wanted to see if that's long enough for me to be able to openly edit the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.
I have made several hundred edits with this particular account over the last several months, without any problems other than a few very minor messages on my talk page.
If you ban this account, I will understand.
If you don't ban this account, then at least I can be open about who I really am.
The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- This confession will lead to your block. Why don't you file an unblock request on your original account? It is more likely to have success than coming to AN, confessing, and hoping no one will care. Liz 10:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment.
- I'm willing to get blocked. If that's what their policy is, then so be it.
- Misplaced Pages claims to be the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.
- ...but before doing so, you may want to think of a convincing explanation for the history of socking Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600/Archive. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I hope they see all those great edits I made with my sock puppet accounts. The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lots more at https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Grundle2600
- I am proud of those edits.
- The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't be sure whether you really are Grundle2600's sock, or just want everyone to think so, but either way it seems you're effectively asking to be blocked. Done
- (Obviously others should feel free to unblock, if this turned out not to be warranted.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can't be sure whether you really are Grundle2600's sock, or just want everyone to think so, but either way it seems you're effectively asking to be blocked.
- The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)