Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:34, 5 February 2006 view sourceEdwy (talk | contribs)9,176 edits →Blocking self-identified pedophiles: no difference← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:49, 11 January 2025 view source Buffs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,477 edits →ftools is back!: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
__TOC__
|algo = old(7d)
== Tasks ==
|counter = 368
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
}}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=48
|index=no
|numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000
}}
--><!--


----------------------------------------------------------
<div style="padding: 0 0.5em; margin: 1em 0 0.25em 0.25em; border: 1px solid black; color: inherit; background-color: #ffe3e3; text-align: center;">
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
The following ''']''' require the attention of one or more editors.
----------------------------------------------------------
<br>
''], ], ], ] and ].''
</div>


--><noinclude>
= General =
<!-- Please add new sections to the bottom, not here. -->


==Open tasks==
==Requested Lock of Kurdistan Article by Administration--
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{Clear}}
{{Admin tasks}}
__TOC__
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
ADMIN badly needed in Kurdistan someone keeps writing political propaganda saying Kurdish flag is criminal and banned in Iran which is false. They even add a fake link which has nothing to do with the flag to make false justifications.


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
==]==
Since it involves admins in gereral, admin opinion on this is more than welcome. :) --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 12:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account ].}}
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unbanning and unblocking''' per ]. ] (]/]) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
* Quoting my SPI comment ]: {{tq2|I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of ''block'' evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as ] of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-] unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is ''banned'', and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like ].) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here.&nbsp;... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an ] unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.}}That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at ], which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ] violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: ]. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would '''Support''' with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of ]. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they ''seem'' to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. ] (]) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. ] (]) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' User seems to have recognized what he <!-- before someone complains about my use of the gender-neutral he, this user is male per what they've configured settings to be --> did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. ''']]''' 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>'''Weak Support''', the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. ] (]) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
:*'''Oppose''', I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. ] (]) 14:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Completely support an unblock; see my comment ] when his IP was blocked in April. ] (]) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see ''clear'' evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like may well be on notable competitions, but with content like {{tq|On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club.}}, and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. ] (]) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Currently '''oppose'''; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ ''']'''<sup>''']''']</sup> 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. ] (]) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ahri Boy }} Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. ] (]) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*::He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. ] (]) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "]"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. ] (]) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. ] (]) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*::See . ] (]) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. &spades;]&spades; ] 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
* Come on – it's been nearly ''seven years'' since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). ] (]) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. ] (]) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I think saying that {{tq|I will never use multiple accounts anymore}} and that he wants to {{tq|make constructive content}} would indicate that {{tq|the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only.}} ] (]) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. ] (]) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... ] (]) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: And he admits that he was {{tq|too focused on quantity, rather than quality}}, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on {{tq|mass-creating non-notable stubs}}. ] (]) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to ]. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''] ]'''</span> 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. ] (]) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Fram and PMC. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''': Is SvG the same person as {{U|Slowking4}}? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by ]. ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
**No. ] (]) 23:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' basically per ], particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get ] without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). ] (]) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since ] was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.<br />'''Support'''. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --] (]) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Conditional support unblock''' (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use ] for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. ]] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft ==


I have not come across a situation like ] before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.
== ] ==
The only ] this account makes is to vandalise the ] page and to remove references to Sam Sloan in other articles. Isn't this the kind of impersonating account which gets blocked from Misplaced Pages? Surely, it's just been made to rhyme with Sam Sloan's name? - ] 17:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think a block is justified yet. I left another warning on his talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
::No, I don't mean blocking for general vandalism or anything, he isn't that prolific. I thought that this was a candidate for one of those "username blocks", like Jimbo Whales, or when people replace an l for a capital I to impersonate people. - ] 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
::I just blocked him for twenty-four hours. I'll look into permanently blocking. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Spamscone (note the additional "p") is the Screen Name for Neil Brennen on the ] group rec.games.chess.politics . The name "Spamscone" is a spoof on my name and Brennen has attacked me hundreds of times there. I do not know if the Spamscone there is the same person as the Samscone here, but he is probably the same person as he follows the same pattern. ] 11:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Mr. Sloan is a paranoid idiot. I am not "samscone". That Misplaced Pages continues to allow the Sam Sloans of the world to post their drivel is but another reason to ignore this site. Neil Brennen.


It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per ]. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.
== Jason Gastrich ==


The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.
{{user|Jason Gastrich}} has been warned a few ties about civility; this seems to me to be unacceptable. Any reason I should not issue an ] warning, and act on it if he continues? I have an ongoing dispute with Gastrich (see also ], which shows some history of attacks) but this is neither to or about me, so I see no reason not to issue a formal warning, but I want to do the right thing. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


I became aware of this because there is a request at ] to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.


Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?
: There's an ongoing discussion about this fellow on ] plus a RfC at ]. I blocked him for 24 hours earlier for various stuff. --]|] 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


<small>'''Edit:'''</small> Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet ]?
::Hmmm. I think a block now would hinder the RFC process. I will leave a not on his Talk page to that effect. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] '']'' 11:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think we need to give Jason a short leash at this point. We've indefinitely blocked users (BigDaddy777 comes to mind) for far less than what Jason has done. So right now I say let RfC work and see what happens. But there has to be a point where we say "enough". --]<sup>]</sup> 15:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. ] (]) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per ], final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. ] (]) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tqq|Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace}} ...I'm ''pretty sure'' that BtSV meets ] already, regardless of the state of production, and ''that'' should be the main factor. - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article {{em|could}} be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. ] (]) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. ] (]/]) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. ] (] &#124; ]) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. ''Most'' films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with ] which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem.<span id="Masem:1735450356365:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
::Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. ]]<sup>]</sup> 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly ''because'' they wound up in ]. ] is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. ] ] 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and ]. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. ] (]) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::] is yet another sock of his. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see , and they show no signs of stopping. ] (]) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). ] (]) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{tq|Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?}} Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
**Thank you. ] (]) 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I think it makes sense to archive all threads in ]. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. ] (]) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the consensus at ] is sufficient to indef-block the known and suspected socks, only one of which ({{vandal|Turkmen}}) is currently active anyway. For values of active which encompass being temporarily blocked for disruption, obviously. I will do that now. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 12:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== 43.249.196.179 (again) ==
== Revealing deleted content to non-administrators ==


See their previous thread here, ]. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto and by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what I should do here. I recently speedily deleted a page for nn-bio; the page was written by someone other than the subject of the article, and the subject of the article wants to see what was there before it was deleted. Quoting from my talk page:
:] is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially ] and ]. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. ] (]) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:]: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see ]. Then, ] is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::] seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now ] and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
::::I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. ] (]) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Adressing that final point, I have ] about ] to either remove the ] banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. ] (]) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. ] (]) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''': ] was cited in ] (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (] is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) ] (]) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly . That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. ] (]) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also ]. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. ] (]) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. ] (]) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing ] at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary ], they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to ] and ], instead of ignoring advice given previously and ]. ] (]) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
: ... another reason as to why i would like to see the material is to determine if malice was intended. i have been getting quite a bit of flak from people who have seen the article and seeing the content would hopefully enable me to identify the person who posted the article and hence, pursue the appropriate courses of action.
: Okay, now I am sure: see ] at my Talk page, quickly reverted by {{u|Remsense}} while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an '''indefinite block''' on {{user|43.249.196.179}} as it is a vandalism-only account. ] (]) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. ] (]) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


== Incivility at ] ==
So far, I've been politely refusing to do dig out the deleted material. However, what's the relevant policy on this? Thanks. ] (]) 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


@] and to a lesser extent @] have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as at me, at AWF, and at ]. Is this actionable? ] (]) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:My view is, what would it hurt? ] (]) 06:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


:: Would it be a mis-use of admin powers though? I mean, we don't have the ability to view deleted content for the pleasure of non-admins. ] (]) 06:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC) :This looks to me like it's covered by ]. ] ] 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety {{tq|I am stating a fact.}} and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. ]&thinsp;] 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Not according to ] who have put ] on their user page. ] ] 06:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Back to your question, you might want to read ]. ] ] 06:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC) ::{{tq|"...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days".}} You're probably right about that. ] (]) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::: Cool, thanks for the links! ] (]) 06:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC) :This seems entirely unnecessary. ] (]) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::Can you elaborate on which aspect of {{tq|this}} you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? ]&thinsp;] 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Not every user who can be trusted to view deleted content is an administrator. Whether or not to reveal deleted content is a choice you've gotta make &mdash; ably guided by Zzyzx11's links, of course &mdash; but I don't think it's a good idea to hide ''everything'' from non-admins just because they're not admins. ] (]) 06:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
:::By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @] hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. ] (]) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Unless there is a good reason not to release deleted content (copyvio attack page) I've never seen a reason not to. The content is under the GFDL after all.] 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. ] (]) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Of course the good reasons would be things like copyright violation and libel, etc. So if the information could be considered as libel, then revealing it after deletion could be contributory in that. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
::::@] you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which ''basically didn't find you doing anything wrong''. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. ]&thinsp;] 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:A similar incident occured before. What I did (at someone else's suggestion) was undelete the page, move it to my userpage, delete the redirect, protect the page in my userspace, and give the url to the interested party. This lets them view the whole history and all the information we have, but also prevents it from looking like a real article. --best, kevin <b>]<b>]]<b>]</b> 03:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). ] (]) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this ], this ], and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
:But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. ] (]) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new ] article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. ] (]) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to ] and drop the terminology issue forever. ] (]) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably ''would'' get some kind of result though! - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value ], since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. ] (]) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a ] on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be ] in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails ]. ] (]) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::] (the context of aviation has been from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and ] is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::WP:MOS says: {{tq|If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.}}
:::::::WP:AT, which follows MOS says: {{tq|Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.}}
:::::::The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. ] (]) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple ] articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. ] (]) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::{{tqq|The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply?}} Because ] don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. ] (]) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tqq|An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability}} No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as {{tqq|Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible}}. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. {{ping|Buffs}} "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." {{ping|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} I'd suggest you ] and stop pushing this ] ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? ] (]) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::]. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research ''when in fact it is the correct terminology'' - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly ''incorrect'' terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but ] in the context of aviation is to refer to ''any'' crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. ] (]) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. ] (]) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - ] <sub>]</sub> 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. ] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Not , but this probably ''is'' something best not continued here I reckon. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I did not bring this up to ] to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether <u>DEB's and AWF's behavior</u> is worth pursuing administrator action. ] (]) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. ] (]) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. ] (]) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. {{Tq|... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries}} – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with ] as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated {{Tq|Airliner crash}}, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word ''crash'' and replaced it with ''accident''. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use ''accident'' in articles relating to aviation. ] (]) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Some, but not all, deleted content is sensitive. For instance, if a copyvio or attack page is deleted, recovering that content for a non-administrator might in effect constitute copyright violation or defamation. However, if a nonsense or fancruft page is deleted, recovering that content wouldn't cause any problems. Use common sense. — ''']''' '']'' <small>]</small> 03:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Users can ask for undeletions at ], including having the info moved to their User space. ]|] 17:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC) :Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. ] (]) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Warn both to drop the stick''', otherwise, no action at this point. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:'''''Hands ] two ]''''' You want to hand them out, or me? ] (]) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material ==
There is also ] comprising administrators who will undelete stuff of send its contents in email (provided it's not objectionable or illegal). --] 19:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=This appears to be done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)}}
* {{la|Naomi Seibt}}
After reverting that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @] posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: ".". ] (]) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, why haven't you done that? --] (]) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:Article in question is a ] x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for ], since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does {{u|FMSky}} need ] for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the ] category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —''']''' (]) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"?}} How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --] (]) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with ]. ] (]) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Edit: . ] (]) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --] (]) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Done. Now it’s a summary. ] (]) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else . A block or article lock would be appreciated --] (]) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. ] (]) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. ] (]) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
* Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user {{userlinks|FederalElection}}. At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —''']''' (]) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*:You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. ] (]) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. ] (]) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —''']''' (]) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'll add that ] requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, ] concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. ] (]) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as ] now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. ]] 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
==Soapboxing and user pages==
{{abot}}


== Topic ban appeal ==
] is using his page to soapbox about an issue he hasn't been able to get consensus on. A one of the editors on the consensus side has taken it upon himself to remove this information from his userpage, and another has MfD'd it outright, citing . Is this appropriate use of WP policies? Thanks.--] 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
:Do I understand correctly that someone has listed this guy's user page for deletion because of a content dispute? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::No, it's been listed on MfD as a breach of ], namely for being used as a soapbox for matters unrelated to an online encyclopedia. ] ] 19:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::Not exactly -- he put content on that page that in part violates ], since it got reverted every time he tried to put it in ], and ], for the same reason. See for the version prior to the MfD.--] 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. ] (]) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::This is a content dispute - listing on MfD looks petty. ] 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


:I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? ]] 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I would have said "stupid and obnoxious", myself. Stupid and obnoxious in the ''best of good faith'', of course. And people wonder why *FD gets a bad reputation ... - ] 13:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
::I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. ] (]) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: Closed by ] already. Not like it would have been deleted anyways. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Found it. ]. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Thank you. That is helpful to have. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:* I '''support lifting the ban.''' DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. ]] 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban''' I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. ] ] 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
*:I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you ] and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. ] (]) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. ] (]) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. ] (]) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --] (]) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::I have made plenty of edits to articles like ], ], ], and ] in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. ] (]) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose lifting the topic ban'''. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see ] for example). --] (]) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose at this time''' I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. ] ] 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
*:I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
*:This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. ] (]) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? ] (]) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I'd say {{tq|"racial issues broadly construed"}} is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. ] (]) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart ==
== Me ==
{{atop|1=Looks like this is done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! ] (]) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)


:How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I am blocked user Jimbo Wheels, and would like a way of proving that I am certainly not Willy on Wheels so that I can be unblocked - how do you guys suggest I go about this? The current way I am trying on my ] doesn't seem to be all that productive. (Posting this from an anonymous ip - ] - but please reply on my talk page.
::Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like ''Camden Stewart'' or ''Camden Music''. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" ] (]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: I have moved the article to draftspace at ]. If you have a ] with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are ] and you ] his professional headshot), you must declare it ]. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at ]. ] (]/]) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for your feedback! ] (]) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Andra Febrian report ==
Cheers,
"Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many ]s. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has:
- caused many edit wars <br/>
- deleted citations along with deleting correct claims <br/>
- not been cooperative (wikipedia's ]) on many pages that good-] edits have occurred on <br/>
- not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset. <br/>
I request that the user is warned.
] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
:First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide ] for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - ] 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: please sign your comments using <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to ] and to ] because you are changing information in articles without citing ]. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. ] (]/]) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::] just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of ], but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Liz}} MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks, <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">]]</span> 02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Looking into this {{duck}} (a HiLux ]?) because yeah, this is ''exactly'' the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - ]). - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::@] - ] (]) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. ] (]) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Mr.Choppers warning request ===
Seymore
:: <small> This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. ] (]) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the ] rules because: <br/>
'''-''' calling me a "nuisance" because of own ] supporting others in ] that have nothing to do with the user. ] ] <br/>
'''-''' responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war <br/>
'''-''' note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that <br/>
'''-''' also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims. <br/>
<br/>
I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, ] (]) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)
:Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


== Cannot draftify page ==
:Oh, and also - first of all why were my edits to ] reverted by that guy, and secondly the link to Huntingdon's stance on ethics is a 404 - it should point to http://www.huntingdon.com/index.php?currentNumber=4&currentIsExpanded=0 and as I was clearly saying I was trying to do that until I was banned. This stinks of knee jerk reactions and a refusal by you guys to even countance that I might be acting reasonably just because of some mindless vandal. Why the hell should I be presumed a vandal without making edits like a vandal? You are letting the vandals win. I am pretty annoyed by this, but even more annoyed by the way that you are ignoring me.
{{atop|1=Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::You are illustrating the definition of ''disingenuous''. Arriving in this community with that user name is like showing up at a synagogue social hour with a nametag that reads ''Jesus Hitler''. If your name choice had been an unfortunate coincidence, you would have thanked the person who suggested you change it and quickly complied. I am aware that I have just fed an obvious troll, but will happily extend the block as an act of contrition. No more conversation. ] 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried to draftify ] but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? {{User:TheTechie/pp}} <span style="font-family:monospace; font-weight: bold"> <span style="color:ForestGreen;font-size:15px"> ]</span> (<span style="color:#324c80">she/they</span> {{pipe}} ]) </span> 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Well for the moment I will use this username, and I think you will be able to watch my contributions over time and see how wrong you are. But the synagogue thing is an interesting comparison. It would indeed be a silly thing to do going to a synagogue called ''Jesus Hitler'' if one were named ''Francis Drake''. But if you were actually named ''Jesus Hitler'', it would be reasonable to expect perhaps some disbelief, but also for this to be suspended if you were to produce (for example) a driving licence. The same applies here. ] 12:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{ping|TheTechie}} ] has been deleted. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Remove PCR flag ==
Well, I for one believe that your name really is Jimbo, Seymore. Oh, wait... --] (]) 12:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Flag run down. - ] <sub>]</sub> 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:Seym'''ore''' is my nickname. Seym'''our''' is my middle name. ] 12:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold">]:&lt;]&gt;</span> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Done. ] (]) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== "The Testifier" report ==
This looks like a good faith request. If the guy's a wrong un then he'll be blocked for more than just having a name that spooks people. --]|] 15:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
:The guy's last name is Wheels? I don't think so. ]|] 23:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC) {{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"The Testifier" report| ] (]/]) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
::Dissinterested third party here, but I also run a forum website. Banning someone just because their membername is ''similar'' to a (or some) membernames of those that have violated the ToS (Terms of Service, or site policy) seems rather unjust. I fail to see why ''anyone'' would be banned just for this kind of similarity. Similarities do not prove that they are the same person, this seems more like a corrupt administrator who's policy is '''ban first, ask questions later''' which is also rather detrimental to the community. This looks more like a power-trip than anything else. Ask me about how we deal with repeat trollers at Varus Online. (] 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC))


== Problem with creating user talk page ==
== Deletion gordian knot ==
{{atop
We've been discussing the merits and suggesting changes to AFD for at least half a year now. So it's about time we stop talking and actually do something. The simplest variant to AFD would be to list all proposed deletions, and delete all that nobody objects to within several days. Since about 80% of AFD are obvious keeps or obvious deletes, we can accomplish the same with far less bureaucracy and negativity. ] does just that, and is intended to go for a test run very soon. Please join the discussion there. Note that this should solve the issues regarding deletion recently raised by Jimbo on the mailing list. ]]] 17:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
| result = CU blocked as sock by {{noping|Spicy}}. ] (]/]) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't really like this. With the current system, I can skim the day's AfD page, and if it seems like there is a strong consensus, I don't have to vote at all. With your proposed system, someone checking AfD would need to read every proposed article before knowing whether the article should be deleted. (I hope that wasn't confused... what I mean is I trust the AfD voters, and they save me time. With this, there are no votes to "trust"). -] ] 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
}}
*So basically you're saying that people on AFD vote, and that they do so without actually reading the article, and that this is actually a good thing? By this proposal, you're not supposed to look for issues to vote on - you're supposed to find articles with a problem, and fix that. ]]] 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
*I think he is sayign that when he sees a dispute, he reads the article and votes, but when he sees a clear consensus forming, he trusts the other voters, does not read the article and does not vote. But simce with ] there would be nothing but the nom, someone who wants to avoid improper deletions must check every case, or assume that someone else that s/he trusts has done or will do so. Of course the same problem exixts now with speedy deletes. ] ] 01:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
**Okay, fair enough. But if there was a dispute about an article, it would have at least token oppoistion, and thus would no longer be listed on ]. ]]] 01:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
***True. The real question is the risk of no one looking at a tagged article, and it thus beign deleted when it would have been disputed had anyone looked. but if it is that obvious, no admin should delete it. ] ] 02:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user {{user|BFDIisNOTnotable}} to warn them against ] with {{tlsp|uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ]&nbsp;(]) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the intended form for PROD is that the only people who need to look at proposed articles are 1) people watching or coming across a page(or category) with a tag in it (who, in nearly every case would remove the tag, unless they are watching it to prevent the page from being created); 2) people deciding if the page should be kept or deleted (i.e. people with the delete button, i.e. admins); it is intended that people don't just go through the list of tagged pages to verify that the nominator was right, unless they are going to act on their judgement. Of course, such review is acceptable, but the idea is that it is not necessary; so not being able to view the consensus is not a fault. AfD will still exist, it will be used for any nomination with at least one keep vote, in effect. ] 07:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


:I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... ]] 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
==]==
::I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See ]. ] (]) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I was just looking through the List of User accounts and was wondering if there was a way to de-list indefinantly blocked accounts so we go straight to a list of user accounts without going through the vandals. ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 01:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Ah, I wondered if it was linked to ]. ]] 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. ] ] 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::This particular account was ]. ] (]) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
:first page isn't vandles. The first page is accounts created to keep page 2 accounts off the first page.] 03:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


] from the past month (December 2024).
::Could you better clarify your statement above? I didn't understand a word of it. ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 04:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::*What he means is that some admin (Curps, IIRC) intentionally created a bunch of nonsensical usernames to fill up the first page of Listusers, to prevent e.g. "!!! (foo) is an idiot" from showing on the first page. Yes, that's a hack, and yes listusers could stand from improvement because at present it's pointless. ]]] 12:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:::No, it wasn't me that created all those "!!!" users. -- ] 15:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::::In any case can I suggest that the Listusers be broken-up into users and indefinantly blocked users. It would help identify users from vandals better. ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 15:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
I use listusers to find if someone is an admin, bureaucrat, etc. If there's some other convenient way of going this, I don't know it. --]|] 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
:I use the bureaucrat log at ] but either way works. ] - ] 07:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::log wont cover our older admins.] 03:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


] '''Administrator changes'''
==GNAA member account==
:] ]
<!-- 00:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC) -->
:] {{hlist|class=inline
I'm just letting you all know about what is probably a GNAA account on Misplaced Pages that was created a couple years ago and has become active: {{user|GaryNigel}} &mdash; <small><sub>]</sub><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-24px; margin-right:-24px;">]</span></sup> &bull; 2006-01-29 06:11</small>
|]
|]
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
:It's Popeye again. What's his block status? If Popeye (under whatever name) is blocked, this should be too - ] 07:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
== Congressional Staffer Edits / ] ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
<!-- 00:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) -->
]


] '''Oversight changes'''
In order to centralize this section has been moved to ]
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
== Protect-and-forget ==
</div>

I've spent time recently trying to make sure we don't keep articles semi-protected longer than is reasonably necessary. I've noticed that a good number of admins seem to semi a page and then never return to unprotect it. Please make sure you do. Imo, if we're protecting against simple vandalism (the only use of semi) then the teenager will have got bored within a few hours most times, so there's really no need for these 7 days of protection that we're getting out of forgetfulness. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

:I'd much rather we were more careful to list on Protected pages, where we can all review them, rather than asking the protecting admin to do it. Any system based on asking people to remember to unprotect will result in people forgetting to unprotect.]] 19:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::Well, those that aren't manually listed are auto-added to ], but that doens't seem to be making any difference. There are, I think, about 3 admins that regularly look through that category to find forgotten protects, and a good number who regularly add protections but never remove it. One or two are particularly bad culprits of doing this. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Is it worth getting somebody with bot skills to write a script to compare the categories with ] and add a section for pages that were not added to the list by the admin applying the protection? That might be easier to work with than slogging through the category. --] ] 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Slogging through the various protected-article categories and comparing them to ]/] is easy; I can hack up something pretty quickly to do it. The real problem is finding protected articles that are neither listed nor have a {{tl|protected}} or variant. There's some notes on it on my user page (under current tasks). &#8212;] ] 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::From anecdotal experience, there are fairly few such articles. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::::It's nice having a complete list on ] because it saves having to look through the logs to see when something was protected, saving many redundant (if brief) investigations. It will not, however, solve the problem of protect-and-forget. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
: A little word on their talk pages may help. Contact me if you need some help in the persuading department. --]|] 19:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
::What if the devs change semi protection to expire, or have it so admins can set a protection length like bans. That way a page can be protected and forgeted!! ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 20:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:::This was actually discussed in an early draft of ] and didn't make it into the eventual version because of the desire to ask for as little possible from the devs and to have as few things for people to disagree with as possible. Additionally, a hard-expiry has the problem that it will be either too short or too long in most cases, and an admin shortening a variable-length protect is likely to run into the kind of shtuff we get on AN/I about shortening blocks (I think I irritate people enough by just unprotecting!). This may be worth thinking about though, but in the meantime, diligence from protecting admins will have to stand in. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The way it works at present means that getting a list of protected pages is quite messy and inefficient. I'm going to push for a schema change that will make it a bit easier to retrieve such a list and filter according to the restrictions, but that isn't going to happen for at least a week. ] (]) 01:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Meantime, per a request from ], I've set up a caching report on all semi-protected pages, which can be seen at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~robchurch/semiProt.php and one on all protected pages, at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~robchurch/fullProt.php. ] (]) 15:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

=== Listing on Protected Pages ===
Regarding Mark1's statement above, ''I'd much rather we were more careful to list on Protected pages, where we can all review them'', I'd like to say something that I've said before, and which I suspect will be as unpopular this time as the first time I said it. Listing things on Protected pages is make-work. It's is forcing people to do something manually which can be better done automatically. The templates already put things in categories, and the category mechanism already maintains the lists without need for human intervention. Any process which involves people doing some manual step which could be automated is silly. It's especially so when the automated process already exists, and the manual process just duplicates the automated one. -- ] ] 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:But the categories give no indication of how long the page has been protected, and so no indication of whether it's time to consider unprotecting. ]] 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::The edit logs have all the timestamp data. It's just a matter of coming up with some automated process to make it presented in an easy to use way. Manual processes just don't work. -- ] ] 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==Rebate article move==
] suggested I ask this question here. A while ago, I moved the ] article to ] and created a disambiguation page at Rebate. The word rebate has two main definitions, one being as described in the article currently at ] and the other as described at ]. Over the weekend, this was all reversed because an anonymous user asserted that there was only one definition of Rebate. I have quoted the Macquarie dictionary definition on the Rebate talk page as an alternate definition and I'd like to have it all put back the way it was. What is the best way to approach this? ] 21:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:The main point seems to be that of the two uses of the term, neither is distinctly more relevant than the other. Your point thus becomes that a disambiguation page would give neither meaning preference, and thus would be preferable.
:In this case, I'm inclined to prefer the current solution, in which a simple disambiguation notice on ] to refer users to ]. If only because a disambiguation page for just two items seems silly. Obviously, it is still perfectly possible for you to link to ] using a piped link.
:If you can show that a majority of the world's English speakers don't use the term rebate to refer to a promotional tool, but rather to refer to the woodworking term, the articles should be switched. If Australians use the term rebate to refer to promotional tools as well, I'd say the current status quo isn't bad. -- ] 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::The funny thing about the status quo is that it never stays the same! I didn't think there was anything wrong with the way it was prior to the move either, but there you go. Regarding disambiguation pages, how many items would you consider enough to make it less silly? As I explained on the talk page, my take on it is that if a term with identical spelling can mean more than one thing, I'd prefer to see a list from which I can select, rather than being taken to the one that someone else thought was more likely or important. Perhaps I have the wrong idea.
::I don't see how I can show that a majority of the world's English speakers use the term one way or another. It's in the Macquarie dictionary, which is the standard reference for Australian usage. The fact is, there was no need to change it - it was changed because someone assumed that my alternate definition was invalid (he said that the marketing version was 'the ONLY definition' of rebate) and the change went ahead without my being aware of the vote because it took place on the marketing page, which I was not watching, not the disambig page. Perhaps I could have swayed people before it went ahead if I had known. It actually took quite a bit of work to set up the disambig page in the first place.
::Shall we see how the votes pan out? ] 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Please see ] for an example. It discusses the wooden forrest dwellers directly but refers to a disambiguation page for other meanings. Such is common on Misplaced Pages, since when most people say 'tree', they mean 'large, perennial, woody plant'.
:::Let's not continue this discussion here, though. -- ] 01:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:It's not just two uses of the term, it's the fact that one of those terms has two, equally valid spellings. The dab link at the top of the current ] page links to one variant (rabbet), the current debate is as much about equal time for the other variant (rebate), as it is about a disambiguation.
:While there may be only two terms to disambig at the moment this could well change in the future. I believe a reader may be more inclined to edit a {disambig} page than to ''disrupt'' a fully fledged article, so there may be more entries added later.
:A case in point being the ] article. Ignoring its current status (it's had at least one extra prod since), this article was moved by an editor to create a disambig page for the term '''lathe'''. At the time I felt it was unnecessary however the dab page eventually accumulated a few other that I'd (obviously) never heard of, the end result being an overall improvement to wikipedia. It could be reasonably argued that a simple {otheruses} or {disambig} at the top of the original '''lathe''' page would have the same result, after all ''lathe tool'' is the ''one true meaning of lathe'' (if you'd have asked me a couple of months ago :-) but I'm happier with this approach - it's less territorial and allows others their view to be unobstructed by my (and others) presumptions. I believe you should catch and present the reader with alternatives earler in the browsing process. &mdash; ]<sup>]</sup> 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==Protection of Turkish related pages==
I thought I might want to bring this up. Several articles related to Turkey/Turkish peoples have been vandalized/POV written. Can I suggest the following pages be protected:

*]
*]
*]
*]
*and ]

Only for a while. There has been a strain of vandals/POV pushers lately that have been in reverting wars with other users. As many as 8-12 IP addresses/User accounts are involoved and a few have been blocked and I think everyone could benefit if they are protected. The article ] already got protected because of this dispute. ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
:We should semi-protect rather than full-protect. --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 15:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== Reviewing the US Senate edits ==

Centralizing discussion: moved to ]. Keywords for ctrl-f: 156.33.0.0, Marty Meehan, United States Senate, etc. ] (]) 09:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
This user is creating a huge string of copyvios, possibly using a bot. ] 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:User states on his talk page that an email was sent to permissions at wikimedia.org. Why people would care about hills in Antarctica is beyond me. Then again, I feel the same way with all the Pokemon articles... — ]] 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::I'm a little concerned that the place names the user is adding are not particularly well known names for the locations in question. According to the , the places all have alternative US and GB created names. While more information is better, I'm concerned that we should mention the synonyms, too. ] 07:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==JtKiefer goes off the deep end==

See ]. Block him. ] 02:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:You have got to be joking. Initially I defended your mistakes as being those which anyone could make, but your behaviour quickly spiralled into what is describable as ludicrous and downright disgusting. Frankly, you're lucky no-one's gone running to a developer or steward at the moment, because you would have lost your delete/block/etc. buttons at high speed.

:I don't condone Jtkiefer's mildly abusive language, but I echo his sentiments 100%. ] (]) 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::And now he's started a harassment campaign against me as can be seen . <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 02:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::This is ridiculous. Freestylefrappe has to cease his own incivility, otherwise strip him of his powers as this could get very out-of-hand. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> ] 02:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::The ArbCom have , though I don't know exactly when enforcement is allowed. (Not until the case is closed I believe?) —] • ] • ] 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Ridiculous: Hes allowed to tell me to shut the fuck up but Im the one who's out of line? NSLE, Robchurch, who do you think you're fooling? ] 02:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::I apologize for the STFU but the fact remains that you were and still are way out of line so I suggest for your own good you be quiet before you cause more problems for yourself, and I say that with absolutely no malicious but for your own good. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Something very silly is going on. Calm down. &mdash; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:I'd hardly call it silly, it's fairly serious. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
::Well, I can't claim to have an indepth knowledge of the exact dispute (it seems to have been going on for a while), someone is getting very angry, and we probably know that this anger is sincere. If this keeps up, we will have one very alienated former admin. And that's just silly (perhaps silly is not the best word). &mdash; <span style="font-variant:small-caps;font-family:sans-serif;">]</span><sup style="font-family:serif;">(])</sup> 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. You can bait me all you want. The diffs dont lie. Removing my comments is just immature. ] 02:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Serious or not, it's poor form to kick a guy when he's down, even if he kicked you first. I realize you two have a problem with each other, but could you both cool it a bit and make a deliberate effort to be more courteous than you want to be? ] ] 02:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with this - let's not escalate this conflict even more. Jtkiefer, you've made your point. There's no need to continue saying "good riddance" on his talk page. Remember the golden rule - if you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 03:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Freestylefrappe has now left a short notice on his talk page and protected the page (another abuse of his powers). —] • ] • ] 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked Jtkiefer for three hours to take some deep breaths. is over the top; when a decent editor (terrible admin in my opinion, but mostly good editor) says he's leaving, have a little decorum. &mdash;] (]) 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Update: Right before the block, Jtkiefer elaborated on the the insult "Good riddance to bad rubbish". Perhaps three hours is a little short. &mdash;] (]) 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know what Jtkiefer's up to. This stuff just makes it worse. Incivility in non-negotiable, even to people you don't like, or abusive admins. "Good riddance" is over the top. I can't object to this short block. ]·] 03:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Likewise, and FSF said i'd unblock him if Jtkiefer was blocked awhile ago. Ultimately, I understand Jt's consternation, FSF has brought out the worst in alot of people, including himself. I hope FSF can finally edit with a new peace of mind with his new screenname if he does in fact come back. <font color="#4682B4">]</font><font color="#00FF00">]</font><font color="#E32636">]</font> 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer's response is understandable, but as far as I can see, that was just a cheap shot. — ''']''' '']'' <small>]</small> 03:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer left this note on IRC (times are -8:00 UTC):

<pre> <Jtkiefer> I apologize for losing it
<Jtkiefer> I don't know what got into me
<Jtkiefer> please feel free to convey those sentiments wherever necessary on Wiki
* Jtkiefer has quit IRC (":(")</pre>

In light of this I'd stick with the 3 hour block. —] • ] • ] 03:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:I tend to agree, but have to note that ] has to 12 hours. (He's also blocking Freestylefrappe.) &mdash;] (]) 03:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::I didn't see Jtkiefer's comment on IRC (was away at the time). I think a 12-hour block is still warranted for both (for extreme incivility on the one and abuse of admin powers for the other), but feel free to undo my actions if you wish. ] (]) 03:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I've reverted FSF's talk page and protected it for the time being as tempers are running high. ] ] 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that it's come to this, but these blocks are probably sufficient to cool tempers down. FSF looks to be leaving, likely in response to the voted-for desysopping. We'll see what happens, but in any case, the RfAr still needs to be carried on to its conclusion, IMO. --]]]] 19:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do you think it would help to tell FSF that Jtkiefer is also blocked for the same period of time? Let's not give him the impression that we're condoning actions by either users (I ask because the user talk page is protected: I'd rather not post to a protected page unless you agree that what I plan to write is okay). --]]]] 19:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say it is good to have ] unprotected as soon as possible. Protecting a talk page is a bit too much I think, especially that the parties in question have been blocked anyway, and that those parties are admins who would be able to edit the page if they really wanted to. ] (]) 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:I've removed the protection. Thanks for your feedback. --]]]] 20:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== Unblock User:Elonka ==

This user, who I've known online for a couple of years, has been attacked and banned for no apparent reason, more info at . ] 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:].] 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Her page somehow fails to convince me that any of the alleged statements about her are false - ] 07:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:I have no real interest in pursuing this matter further myself. However, I've exchanged email with both Elonka and Solipsist on this matter, including suggesting (based on my experience of how the Misplaced Pages social dynamic works) that removing or severely toning down the page linked above would be a very good idea to further a happier involvement with Misplaced Pages - ] 11:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Maybe if we Wikipedians would remove or severely tone down our mistreatment of good-faith contributors, ''that'' would further a happier involvement with Misplaced Pages. — ''']''' '']'' <small>]</small> 16:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This deletion nomination was made because a first nomination, which resulted in no consensus, is being appealed on ] (DRV). Because DRV is not a consensus-based forum, I obviously decided that it would get a fairer discussion with a second run on Articles for deletion. I made the second nomination and so far there are six votes in addition to my nomination, in which I gave a recommendation to keep. I made the nomination in good faith, and all six votes so far favor keeping the article.

However, R. Fiend has delisted this. He states that a second nomination cannot proceed while the first is under review. I find this unconvincing. It would be extraordinary if two discussions on AfD gave strong indications of absence of consensus to delete an article, but the article was deleted by deletion review as a result of refusal to permit the second deletion discussion to proceed and a decision to ignore the non-consensus to delete in the first.

I invite discussion on how to resolve this problem. I'm sure R. Fiend is sincere in his belief that the second AfD would be wrong, but I do not think it can be right to use deletion review to overturn a no consensus keep result while refusing a simple rerun to determine whether a consensus can be raised. --]|] 05:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:Deletion review and AfD measure two very different things. Deletion review is an evaluation of the decision made by the closer, while AfD is an evaluation of the article itself. I see no reason why the two cannot be conducted at once. That the results of the first AfD may have been misinterpreted in no way affects the quality of the article. - ] 05:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for restorng it. R. Fiend has removed it again and closed the nomination for a second or third time, I've lost count), claiming that it was a bad faith nomination. Oh well, I'm not going to get into an edit war. --]|] 05:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:Failing to place a notice on DRV that it's been re-opened, plus the itself, it strains credulity to ask us to consider this nomination as having taken place in good faith. Can a week go by without a tempest in a teacup being raised by Mr. Sidaway? The discussion at DRV had failed to date to get the super-majority required for deletion, and would almost certainly have resulted in relisting regardless. Yet again, the path of maximum disruption has been chosen. - ]]] 05:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I closed the AFD because it was obviously bad faith, in the same way it would be bad faith for me to nominate George W. Bush for President saying "Here's why you should vote for him: 1. he's a liar, 2. he's an idiot, and 3. he's a war-monger." What's this? No one is supporting him? How odd. DRV is discussing whether the first AFD was closed correctly, Tony trying to undermine this by engineering a keep consensus at an unrelated vote is not good faith. But Simon's right, DRV and AFD measure 2 different things, and there shouldn't be votes going on at the same time in both places. Which takes precedence? If DRV decides that the first closure was incorrect, then I guess it would be deleted, and the AFD would be closed, because the article would already be deleted, and if recreated could be a speedy G4. If having more discussions at more places inevitably gives us better results should I open a concurrent 3rd and 4th AFD for the article? As long as I get one consensus I could then claim a valid delete, right? In any case, I'm curious to see whether AFD is a vote or not. Everyone says it isn't, but I suspect it really is. -] 05:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm here to tell you that it wasn't in bad faith. I'm not going to re-open it since you've speedy kept. Of course AfD will always take precedence, because it's the consensus-based forum. There is enough rancor on Misplaced Pages lately without you and Aaron spilling this extraordinary bile aroumd. --]|] 06:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:DRV is also a consensus-based forum. And you really shouldn't be accusing other people of spreading rancor. Pot, meet kettle. ]]] 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Remind me again why AFD/DRV as they now operate should be spared from being nuked from orbit? - ] 07:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*Likely because of the fallout, earthquakes and tidal waves resulting from such a nuke. However, do note that there will be an alternative available soon, as I've said on your talk page. ]]] 08:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Who told you that DRV is a consensus-based forum? 50% to endorse, 75% to overturn doesn't sound like consensus to me; it's just vote-counting. No, AfD works by consensus, doesn't have quite so paranoid an atmosphere, and could easily have handled a rerun of this debate, and there was no reason why that debate could not run in tandem with the DRV discussion, over which it would of course (being consensus-based) take precedence. --]|] 11:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*What I mean is that DRV was created by, and is supported by, consensus. The individual discussions there are technically vote counting, but people do make more sensible comments than on AFD, and take each other's opinion into account more than they appear to do on AFD. ]]] 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Predicted result of this kerfluffle: creation of a faith-based deletion page. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Tony, I think you may be trying to have your cake and eat it here. When you want something kept, you (not for the first time) bypass DRV, and appeal to xFD (where it is easier to get a 'keep'). But when it came to userbox templates, you ignored TfD and speedied them, and then listed on DRV (where it is easier to get a deletion endorsement). XfD is derided when you don't like its results, and upheld as essential when you do. I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but this gives the impression of gaming the system. And, yes, the system stinks, but the only other thing on offer seems not to be so much a 'faith-based' deletion system as a 'Tony-based' one--] ] 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a headache here. David Gerard might have a point. I'll see if ] has any ] out yet. Who's bringing the ]? ;-) ] 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Doc, you're right that I took a pragmatic approach on userboxes. I would not trust DRV to make a good call on article content, because there is a tendency there to ignore or downplay the importance of content. As userboxes are pure vanity and have no encyclopedic content I will trust the judgement of DRV more than I trust a TfD, because it's in the nature of userboxes to be placed in prominent positions on people's userpages, resulting in an unconscious and unavoidable skewing of TfD votes where userboxes are involved. Those who tend to their userpages spot the tfd notice and click the link--I can't blame them for doing that but it does create an artificial keep vote which is not representative of consensus. According to my survey of--to date--more than 200 userpage contacts from my watchlist, only 10% of active Misplaced Pages editors have political or religious userboxes (which is not to day that the other 90% are opposed to them, but I expect they might be include a lot of people who are less in favor of them). --] 19:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

==Moving of Article==
I need an administrator to help me move an article. The artice ] should be moved to ]. The lattar article is now blank. The two articles were existing for at least 6 months and they deal with the same subject. Thank You. ] 06:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*Done, but in the future please post that on ] rather than here. ]]] 07:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==Freestylefrappe block==
I've indef blocked Freestylefrappe until his RfAr is over, due to NPA violations among other things. Any questions can be directed to my talk page or in this section; I've temporarily put this page on watch. ] 07:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

* I don't like the idea of his being blocked for the duration of a RFAr. Are his attacks so bad and so likely to recur, that he cannot be permitted to participate? If necessary, couldn't you apply for a temporary injunction to stop him attacking people? A block is probably too blunt a tool for the circumstances. --]|] 11:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*I agree. Indefinitely blocking someone while he is under an RfAr seems very heavy-handed. --]]]] 12:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*Hmmm... it ''does'' make it difficult to try and defend oneself, NPA violations notwithstanding. --] <sup><font color="#3D9140">]</font></sup> 12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*Don't worry too much about it. The "indefinite" block will only last until 15:27, when MarkGallagher's block expires. I suggest we just let that happen. ] ] 12:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
*Good idea. I'll undo the block. ] 13:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)



== Tommstein injunction ==

The following injunction has been passed in the Tommstein arbitration case:
:{{Vandal|Tommstein}} is banned, until the conclusion of this Arbitration, from editing any page except those directly related to Arbitration involving him, and his own User and User Talk pages. He may be blocked for a short time, up to three days, for any edit violating this injunction, and all such edits may be reverted by any editor without regard to the limitations of the three revert rule.
]·] 07:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==]==

This arbitration case has closed.

The indefinite block will remain in place and the remedies will apply if and when {{user|Gibraltarian}} is unblocked by an administrator. It is recommended that he ''not'' be unblocked unless he has assented to the conditions imposed by the Committee's decision.

The remedies involve a personal attack parole and two forms of probation on Gibraltarian. In extreme cases he may be blocked for up to one year if he breaks probation or parole. These remedies apply to his sock puppets also. Please see the final decision for full details.

A notice has been placed under the block notice on his user page, and the usual notice of the final decision has been placed on his talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee. ]|] 10:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:As a side note, ] is the page where you want to record blocks. He's hitting us once or twice a day, every day. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks for the help. That was my first arbitration case close. I'm a veteran now--three cases! Woohoo indeed, Kitty! --] 15:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

==]==
An unregistered user whose IP belongs to Qwest keeps making a series of changes to the article on a candidate for Congress in Ohio that are the sort of things one would say on a campaign site. I keep reverting and have posted a notice on talk pages of the article and of the IP addresses, but it appears every new session gets a new number. Has anyone else been seeing this sort of thing? ] 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:Perhaps a case for semi-protection if he keeps editing anonymously from dynamic IPs. ] 17:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for the suggestion. I've done just that. ] 17:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This has been put together from a large number of opinions and feedback given on the ]. Most of it should be commonsensical and/or based on existing practice. Comments welcome. ]]] 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== Inappropriate image on the ] page ==

Greetings. On vacation, I took a lot of pictures of exhibits at the Smithsonian gallery and uploaded them to Misplaced Pages, releasing them under both the GFDL and a cc-sa license. One picture in particular was ], showing a folio from a very large Qur'an, with my wife in the photo to show scale. I added the photograph to ], the commissioner of this historic Qur'an.

Someone added the image to the ] article, and controversy quickly ensued (see ]). The photo shows my wife in clothing that would be considered normal in Washington D.C. in the summer, but which is scandalously immodest in most of the Muslim World. ] is an extremely high offense is Islam, of course, as can be seen in ]. Now there's nothing wrong with having such a picture on Misplaced Pages -- we have much more racy pictures -- but to have the picture in the Qur'an article was offensive to many Muslims, and several complained. A vote was held. Many supporters of the image's removal wanted to avoid being offensive unless it was necessary, or simply felt the photograph was not of sufficient quality to warrant its inclusion. Many opponents of removal wanted to take a stand against what they saw as religious censorship, or noted that no similar replacement is available. Feelings were strong, and bad faith was assumed by many on both sides.

When I found out about the incident, quite by accident, my wife and I sat down and talked about it. She is very saddened that her likeness is being used in such an insensetive way, and we both agreed that it was unacceptable for this image to be used. I noted this on the the controversy page, but by then many people's feelings had solidified, and no votes were changed as a result. After two weeks, the vote was closed, but consensus had not been acheived: there were 20 keep votes and 16 remove votes. As could be expected, both sides feel that the lack of consensus validates their own position.

As I stated on that page, "The fact is, I'm just not comfortable having an image of my wife misused in this way. Yes I uploaded the photo, but I never intended for it to be used in an article on the Noble Qur'an, so I'm going to remove it. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and I respect that, but I'd ask that you use a photo of your own wife, and leave mine out of it. It pains me to be so stubborn about this, but I take this very personally."

Now there is something of a mild revert-war going on. This is an extremely important issue to me, since I feel that my family has been brought into a very unfortunate situation here, and my wife is understandably insistent that her image not be used to cause religious offense in this way. I'm not sure how to handle this. I'm obviously far too involved to use any of my admin abilities to deal with the situation. Any advice or assistance by other admins would be appreciated. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Unless someone else has it archived, delete the image. I believe ] G7 criteria applies (author requests deletion). Since images are un-undeletable, the image is "gone" forever. People can rail back and forth about whether you commited some grave injustice, but in the end you hold the original copyright. My $0.02. --] 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Since I'm so involved, I'd feel better if someone else did this for me. (Deletion is an admin tool.) &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Image deletion is governed by ], not ]. In future, don't GFDL your images unless you're happy with them being used by the Klan, etc. ;) ]] 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::That had been done, but many objected (understandably) that without the person in the image, you don't get a sense of the scale of the folio. So the image was reverted back and forth a bit under several different names. :( &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Ah, took a look at the image history and you are not the only editor...so the CSD doesn't apply in this case anyways. :/ --] 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm quite tempted to '''bold'''ly delete. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps list on ] or ], because the photographer didn't get the subject's permission to release the image? ]] 19:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::Well, thats kind of the problem. Since others have uploaded their revisions to the photo, and because of the way you licensed it, not only do other copies certainly exist but you aren't the creator of the revised images. If you do delete it, the revisers could re-upload the image still under gfdl and use it in the article. You could of course ask them not to...but they are under no obligation to do so I don't think.
:::::I'm hoping that one of the more senior admins wander by and have a good solution. I'm not going to say that you shouldn't delete the image / ask that it be deleted...because frankly I would consider doing that myself (as I stated above naievely, and now knowing more about the situation) if it were my picture...but know that there could be penalties to pay. :( --] 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (after edit conflict)
::::::You could possibly try appealing directly to Jimbo. He's a busy man but it's a non-trivial issue and it touches on issues of privacy or personal information, which he has shown sensitivity to in previous cases. -- ] 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I was bold. I hope this ends it. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, that was really inappropriate. I understand that you and your wife are upset about this, but you have an ethical obligation not to use your administrative powers to decide cases in which you are so personally involved. As far as I can see you have no legal grounds to control the photo and while you might have a reasonable case for convincing others to remove it, you certainly shouldn't just delete it yourself. ] 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more complex than that. Generally, it has been considered kosher for users to remove most kinds of content they added (except en-masse deletions). Note that if it were re-uploaded by someone else, it would be inappropriate for Quadell to remove it again, but this particular case is at least murky ground -- I don't think it's clear cut that he was acting wrongly, and I think it is a far cry from abuse. If you want the content, re-uploading it should be ok and simplify things. --] 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm do you think we could find a photo of someone reading the bible in a bikini?] 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

::Forgive me for citing it, but that really would be ]. Apart from that, Christianity actually doesn't necessarily ban such garb, so the point isn't quite the same. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::(Islam doesn't necessarily ban sleeveless tops either). ]] 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Are you seriously argueing that wikipedia doesn't need more pictures of women in bikinis (the bible/bikini thing was used in the photo debate)?] 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

:I don't see how this could be considered abuse. Quadell made an unwitting mistake. He publicly requested that the community correct the mistake. There may have been a split consensus, but that means that a substantial portion of the community acknowledged the mistake. The community sat in paralysis for almost three weeks debating the mistake. Quadell finally fixed the mistake himself. Fine. We should help people correct bona fide mistakes. The controversy was turning into a real life version of ]. ] 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: the above situation has resulted in an ]. Feel free to stop by and leave comments, whether critical or supportive. &ndash; ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 13:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:Note: Apparently the RfC has been withdrawn as of earlier on Feb 1, 2006. --] 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

==Kurdish Articles==

There are individuals who are adding points that are past POVs. They are simply and untrue and based on political agendas and motives at the expense of the truth. People come on Misplaced Pages to learn not to be be misguided. Established facts are systematically be represed. Please read the discussions on Kurds, Kurdistan, and Iranians. Kurds are an Iranian ethnic group and it is an established fact in the academic world, through language, ancestry, culture, traditon, and history, but there are individuals who are systematically deleting this information and even attack other articles to cut all ties and assocation between the definition to validate their agendas. They have even gone far enough to claim that Kurds are Jewish just to disassociate Kurds from being an ethnic Iranian ]. In reality Jews are a religious group and not a race. There are Black Jews, Asian Jews, European Jews, and so on. The Kurds ancestors were ] peoples who were ] and have a language that can be mutually understood in portions by other Iranian peoples. Please we need ADMIN. They are even swearing in the history saying (KHarr) in Kurdish just to force their agenda atr the expense of facts. PLease read the discussions in relations to Kurds. Thank you. ]
:Seems like typical edit disputes to me...nothing that warrants AN/I. One of the pages have already been protected, and Kurdistan might end up so as well, as the edit summaries there are quite nasty. You need to discuss this on the talk page if several others disagree (or to avoid a revert war). Please add <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to the end of your comments to sign them. Thank you.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== The welcome template ==

There are some disagreements about what would be appropirate to have on {{tl|welcome}}. I started a poll about this, at ]. Opinions would be most welcome. ] (]) 02:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)



== Congressional Edits / 143.231.249.141 ==
<!-- 00:17, 02 February 2006 (UTC) -->
(moved it to the ])

== Singapore proxy vandalism; did I call this one right? ==

I just removed the following entry from ]:
:{{vandal|165.21.154.115}} Vandalizing after fourth level warning. Has been blocked thrice before. ] 05:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The last vandalism from this IP was over three hours ago, and it has made one minor non-vandal edit since then. The IP resolves to "bbcache-115.singnet.com.sg" and appears to be part of an AOL-like shared proxy setup. The block log shows four blocks and one unblock with the comment "''singapore proxy? shorten block''".

Since I've been doing this admin thing for less than a day, I'd like to confirm whether my decision not to block was correct. Also, from , it appears that there is indeed a persistent vandal using these IPs. Since individual blocks seem ineffective and a range block would likely cause massive collateral damage, what should be done? Contacting the ISP? —] <small>(])</small> 08:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:Singapore ISPs are irritating like AOL, so I'd rangeblock 15 minutes increasing double upwards, they do stop when you hit, say, the 1 or 2 hour block. Don't block too long, though, it hampers innocent users like how AOL does. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> ] 08:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks for the advice. Since, judging from the talk pages, many of the users behind these IPs also seem to be confused by this, I went and forked {{tl|AOL}} to {{tl|Singnet}} and tagged all the existing user talk pages in the 165.21.154.0/24 range with it. We'll see if that helps at all. —] <small>(])</small> 10:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::I myself am on Singnet (203.124.2.0/24), so it sucks when I get caught in the autoblocker (has only happen thrice so far, thankfully), what you did may have no effect; I myself honestly don't see what the tag will do :P ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> ] 10:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Continuing the series of efforts that may or may not accomplish anything, I just submitted the following report to Singnet:

: ''The English Misplaced Pages (en.wikipedia.org) has recently experienced petty but persistent vandalism from someone accessing the site through the Singnet proxiesat 165.21.154.0/24. The vandal has boasted of their ability to evade Misplaced Pages's IP address -based blocking system, since their requests come from multiple shared proxies. I have included below a list of recent vandalism events; I hope that this information may allow you to identify this user by your proxy logs. I believe the activities of this user are in violation of your AUP, and would like to ask for your help in ensuring that this vandalism will not continue.
: Vandalism via 165.21.154.115:
:* 05:34 (UTC), 31 January 2006:
:** ''http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fungus&action=submit''
:* ''23:19 (UTC), 30 January 2006:''
:** ''http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:165.21.154.16&action=submit''
:* 04:20 (UTC), 30 January 2006:
:**''http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Newbie&action=submit''
: ''Vandalism via 165.21.154.113:''
:* 05:20 (UTC), 31 January 2006:
:** ''http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anglo-Chinese_School_%28Independent%29&action=submit''
:''Vandalism via 165.21.154.112:''
:* ''23:15 (UTC), 30 January 2006:''
:** ''http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:165.21.154.16&action=submit''
:* ''05:03 (UTC), 30 January 2006:''
:** ''http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:165.21.154.112&action=submit''
:''There are more, but these should be ought to do for a start. We have, of course, no way of being sure that these really are all the same user, but there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that at least most of the vandalism is made by a single user. Unfortunately, attempts to stop this user's vandalism by IP-based blocking are not only ineffective, but are harming all Singnet users who contribute to Misplaced Pages. I therefore sincerely hope that you are able to resolve this issue at your end.''
: ''Thank you,''
: ''--''
: ''Ilmari Karonen, administrator on the English Misplaced Pages''

(Yes, the e-mail address given above is valid.)

I suppose it's a bit of a long shot, but I felt it was worth a try at least. Who knows, maybe something will come of it. —] <small>(])</small> 12:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This has been under heavy attack and is linked to from the front page. I've semi protected which has calmed things down a little but people are still removing the images from the article. Could someone keep an eye on it as I have to go now? Thanks ] 09:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:I've blocked ] for 24 hours for ] for threatening to report us to the authorities, repeatedly. ] 09:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:] has un-semiprotected. ] 10:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Augh. This article's talk page makes my head hurt. If someone uses another exclamation mark or hastily constructed analogy, I'm going to vomit. --] 20:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== Repair my botched move please (apologies!) ==

A botched paste has meant I've just moved ] to ] rather than ] (so that the article's title matches name given in opening sentence). Unfortunately the article's history prevents my correcting it, so I'd be grateful if someone could do it for me. Apologies and thanks in advance, ] 15:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

PS Yes, once renamed I will return to the article to check for and remove double redirects to it. Thanks again, ] 15:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:Done though I didn't see any discussion about what the correct way to name the article is. Some justification for the new name would be good. And go ahead and fix all the links to the article to bypass the redirects. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Taxman. I've just finished updating the redirects. I didn't propose a Requested Move as I think the name change is uncontroversial, in view of (a) the article's opening sentence; (b) my recalling how this name was expressed in a couple of history sources I've referenced, (c) backed up by (non-Misplaced Pages-based) results from an internet search. Best wishes and thanks again, ] 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

==]==
Please use ] for the image. Thanks. Also consider semi protecting rather than complete protection. --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*That image looks awful at the size rendered (terrible scaling artifacts). Maybe I'll try to do a ] version tonight. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
**It is better than the alternative currently --<small>]<sup>]|]</sup></small> 12:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== Suggest informal WikiDefcon 4 for US Congress Articles ==

As more news stories are being published about the Congressional IP kerfuffle, I'm seeing occasional messages on various message boards discussing their own new edits of various articles about Congressmen and Senators. Some are legit, some aren't. In any case, I suggest admins pay special attention to any edits to such pages for the next day or two, as vandalism and POV edits are going to be somewhat more likely for a little while. --] 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:''Please'' don't say "WikiDefcon". It makes my eyeballs itch. Thanks, ] (]) 13:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

==Fix of a Botched Page move==
I have just tried to fix a botched page move/archive on ]. Please see ] for an account of what I did. I think there may still be discussion lost. I would appreciate a more expereinced admin looking at this page to dewtermine if there is any way to retrive this missing content. ] ] 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== Naming conventions ==

How does a naming convention get from proposed to accepted? I posted ] in April 2005. Nobody has objected to it and I've been using it to rename articles covered by it. Though I'd feel more confident it were official policy. So how do I make that happen? ] 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
*It seems that you originally did not follow the steps listed on ] back in April. Thus nobody was notified, nobody really commented on it, and therefore it was eventually marked as inactive. ] ] 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
**Yep, just like that. To advertise such, put a link on RFC, the village pump, WT:Naming conventions, and the talk pages of relevant high-activity pages or wikiprojects. Get consensus. I marked this as historical because (1) there was no active debate, and (2) there was no real feedback whatsoever, thus no way to tell if it's consensual. ]]] 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== AfD closings ==

A non-admin has closed a number of AfD ''votes'', ''blatantly out of process'' attempting to ''railroad'' through his ''desired result''. I have created a list of those closings, here: ]. Administrators are asked to review these closings. -- ] | ] 21:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:Then the non-admin should probably apply to RfA if they want to do tasks normally left to admins. Or they should go to RfC. They shouldn't strike poses about it here, though. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::The non-admin had been under the impression that adminship was no big deal. He noted that there was a two-day backlog on AfD closings and decided to try to help out. He realizes the error of his ways, and will not close any more AfDs. -- ] | ] 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::The non-admin should be encouraged to close unambiguous "keeps" (or similar, such "merge", "transwiki", "redirect" etc), as it says in ]. When the non-admin closes ambiguous debates, the non-admin must reasonably expect that an admin (not this one, incidentally, who doesn't recall overruling an AfD closure) ''might'' amend that closure. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::If the non-admin had been told that instead of being accused of blatantly circumventing process to railroad through a desired result, and the admin amending the closure had not deleted the article three times without any discussion whatsoever, the non-admin would have retracted his closing. What do you recommend be done about the other nonambiguous closings listed on my subpage? -- ] | ] 21:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::I'm confused by your list: are these AfDs those that were closed by any non-admin, or by the non-admin in question? Some of these are very old and I don't think require ''any'' sort of review. --]]]] 21:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::Those are all the AfDs that I have closed (I am the non-admin in question). -- ] | ] 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, okay. I'll take a stab at some of the newer ones. I'll endorse any I agree with, but I won't yet mark any that I disagree with yet. Some of the older ones (such as ]) don't appear to be closed by you, however. --]]]] 21:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Oops, that should be ]. I'll fix the link. -- ] | ] 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help. We don't all have a ramrod up our behinds.;) --] 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A little while ago, when I first tried to help out on the VfD backlogs as a non-admin, I closed a lot of ambiguous VfDs as "no consensus" and there wasn't an explicit note telling non-admins not to do those types of VfDs. If those closings were to occur today, I'm sure I'll get a lot of angry messages demanding that I only close unambiguous AfDs. :-P --]]]] 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

: The explicit note is on the ] page, which I missed while reading ] and ]. The closest thing I found on either of them to non-admins closing discussions was this paragraph on the Guide to deletion page:

:<blockquote>An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merger" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. ''However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages''. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary. (''Italics mine'')</blockquote>

:I've closed 95 AfDs, many of them less than perfectly unambiguous. This is the only one for which I've yet caught any flack. If DollyD hadn't recreated the article, I would never have even noticed that I was doing anything anyone had a problem with and would still be closing AfDs. Having now been pointed to the Deletion process page, I would like to make sure that the AfDs I have closed have been properly closed. -- ] | ] 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::I think you mis-read that paragraph. Let me highlight:
:::In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the ''community's acceptance of the additional action''. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages.
::Thus, the actions that "can be taken by any editor" refer to "additional action." For example, votes to "keep pending verification" implies that anyone can go and verify the article content. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Reading that again, yeah, I definitely misread it the first time. Sorry. -- ] | ] 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a few that some issues. I'll discuss them on your talk page. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

: Thank you. -- ] | ] 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing an obvious keep as a keep is something anyone can do. Closing an obvious delete as a delete is something anyone can do; non-admins should just tag the article for deletion with a note about the AfD result--but they should probably say "closed by non-admin" because a review of such a deletion would be in order and any deleting admin should be warned that he needs to do that.

Ambigious cases? I'd say that most of those can be closed "no consensus" too. If there is no subtantial agreement on the correct action (absent copyright infringements, which must always be deleted) then the deletion policy applies: "If in doubt, don't delete." But such actions can be fairly controversial, and if you really can't wait for a deletion discussion to be closed it's best to ask an administrator experienced in AfD closes to do it for you, --] 15:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Another set of eyes, please ==

There is a bit of a war going on over at {{article|Louisiana Baptist University}} (when isn't there?), but what I want is a second lok at this:
* {{vandal|Turkmen}} - do we think this is onbe of the same sock farm as (for example)...
* {{vandal|Dr._Turtleton}}
* {{vandal|God's child}}
* {{vandal|HRoss}}
* {{vandal|LinkChecker}}
* {{vandal|TonyT5}}
* {{vandal|Wiggins2}}, and the proven or self-admitted socks at:
* {{vandal|Adelaey}}
* {{vandal|Big_Daddy}}
* {{vandal|Big_Hater}}
* {{vandal|Big_Lover}}
* {{vandal|Bobby Lou}}
* {{vandal|Chacha1}}
* {{vandal|Chochi}}
* {{vandal|Neutered}}
I am being urged to block, and I am inclined to block all the suspected socks indefinitely. There is an open RfC at ], pretty solid consensus behind dealing robustly with the guy, but I am new at the mop-and-bucket game so I'd value a second (or more) set of eyes. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)



== ] ==
Hi, can the folks here please keep an eye on ] (a computer worm) and the various pages which I've redirected to it . I'm concerned that external links to download a removal tool should only go to extremely reputable sites. ] 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

== AfD move ==

The article nominated for deletion at ] has been moved by ] in the middle of the nomination. It would be great if somebody could move it back, as it seems to hinder the AfD process, per some comments I read last time s/he did this (]).

Also, when the first AfD was successful, s/he simply recreated the list in a different title. Can it just be speedied?

Thanks. ] 23:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:A recreation of deleted content can be speedied. Apply {{tl|db-repost}} plus a pointer to teh Afd if it isn't at an obvious location, please. ] ] 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:
:Thanks. ] 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:The link to the AfD discussion has been fixed after the move, so ther is really no problem with teh move that i can see, as far as the AfD process goes. The only reason moves are discouraged is that they often break such links. ] ] 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

::Oh yeah, it wasn't moved; it was cut-and-pasted before. I forgot. ] 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

::I moved it based on discussion with others in the deletion forum since it would seem the new title would be more appropiate, and made the move very clear in that deletion forum. Also the claim by ] that I ''simply recreated the list in a different title'' is completely untrue, and ] knows this having closely looked at both articles. In fact the new article which ] has once again nominated for deletion contains hundreds of links and is now a comprehensive list of every topic relating to ''Buffy/Angel'' (the old list contained about thirty links). The article ] is more appropiate as an alternative to categories as it offers links to discussion pages, links to 'revision histories', red links of articles yet to be created, and potential annoatation by myself in the weeks to come. ], you have already nominated the article for deletion, please do not intentionally mislead people. -- ] 17:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== MonkeyCMonkeyDo ==
I'm not sure where to report this, so if there is a more appropriate place please let me know. The ] article has been vandalized several times, and it has been protected on and off. Earlier today user ] (]) . What troubled me is the message he left on ]. He said ''"you ya know. I have this strange problem where i can't control my urge to vandalize the green day page, as well as its subordinates. so if you dont put the block back on the page i might lose myself and vandalize it a whole bunch."'' I think this can be solved by having an admin talk to him and decide if the problem is with the page or the user. ] 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:I will keep an eye on this user's contributions over the next couple of days. --] 05:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== systemic attack on castro related pages ==

Just bringing attention to ] aka "El Jigüe" aka "at the Bay of Pigs I was jailed by Castro"
:Under an anon account El Jigue has been inserting counter-revolutionary propaganda several times a day since 15 September last year. All his edits have been related to Cuba, and most use Miami dissident websites as a source. Unlike most with a pov campaign, he has avoided edit wars, and has gone relatively unoticed. I don't know how you folks deal with this, may I suggest an exploding cigar?--]] 03:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
::Update: The sooner an admin gets on this the better! Take a look at the recent edits (still not reverted as of now) . Random older example: . Here is a recent example of the systemic bias taken in his edits. ] An elementry knowledge of Cuban history is all that is needed to see how this statement is plain wrong. The editor has made thousands of edits, I have only spent a few minutes scratching the surface. I picked these examples out of the blue in order to show what is going on here, these are ''not'' the worst cases. Good luck.--]] 09:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Some weeks and months ago this anon was misbehaving... re-creating AfD'd articles under new names (not just once but multiple times, and with unencyclopedic titles), vandalizing ] to make some point about Cuba , adding an out-of-place link to espionage in Castro's Cuba to ] , editing the ] and ] articles based on some apparent conspiracy theory of his . The latter egregious stuff was a few months ago, I guess he doesn't do that anymore, but apparently the POV editing has continued.

Back in December he took exception when I speedy deleted his fourth or fifth re-creation of an AfD'd article, and some discussions ensued, see ]. At the time it was clear he didn't believe in ], believed he owned the articles he created, and most significantly, did not believe his contributions were covered under the GFDL. He appeared to be quite suspicious of the motives of others and not easily won over to Misplaced Pages philosophies and principles.

After that I moved on, it was mostly the stuff I considered egregious that I was concerned with (re-creation of deleted articles and adding Cuba stuff to non-Cuba articles), and I didn't really care to get involved in content disputes over Cuban-related topics. For those who would wish to do so, there's ]. -- ] 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== ], ], &c. ==
Tonight, we got a new user (]) who's pushing POV on those pages -- but as I was trying to get him/her to understand more about discussing changes, &c., I effectively entangled myself into a dispute as to whether there is a consensus as to whether ] should redirect to ] or ]. Since I am stuck in the middle of the dispute, I'd like some people to examine the situation to see if you think any of the related pages should be protected pending dispute; I am now myself uncomfortable doing it since I may be accused of doing it to preserve my own POV. --] (]) 06:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

:I was waiting all this time for an admin to see what ] did, and I'm surprised it took so long. '''I hereby request any admin''' to check carefully the , the timing, and whether he had any concensus at all in the first place. ], ], etc. are very controversial topics, and concensus is vital before doing such controversial page moves. Perhaps he didn't know that such multiple page moves can be very harmful. But please warn Appleby of any such unilateral edits again in the future, explain how to discuss with others, take votes, etc.--] 01:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

::<s>Vandalism is in progress by ] now. See ] (small letters) and ] (capital letters) pages. Appleby was warned of ] in the ] (capital letters) page.</s>--] 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since then, Appleby has continued to unilaterally impose changes on ] and ] as well, making edits that are calculated to evade 3RR. I'd very much like to request, again, that someone other than myself look into this. --] (]) 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:FYI, ] just broke the ] rule in the ] page. Plus he has been involved in at least 2 other ]s (other than Sea of Japan/East Sea) in the last 24 hours.--] 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:I just reported it in ]. As a general comment, it is ''very difficult'' to edit pages when there are people like that reverting others at will.--] 04:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

==]==
This arbitration case has closed. ] is banned indefinitely from editing ] and ]. He is on indefinite ]. These provisions are to be enforced, should he break them, by blocks. The full details are in the decision (linked above).

For the arbitration committee. --] 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

==Silly NPOV addendum==
Some people, including infamous vexlit Zen-master, have put together ], which in their own words is a proposed policy in addition to NPOV. However, of special interest is the phrase near the bottom, ''"Note that science ... when used to emasculate other views ... is also POV suppression."'' In other words, this is really a stealth proposal against using scientific facts to discount an article on pseudoscience. This was pointed out on the talk page, but of course it's not being listened to. Can I get some additional input there on why this is a bad idea? ] 11:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:"It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized ''as if by its proponents to its best ability.''" (emphasis theirs) Proponents are by definition not neutral and this is saying that the article should read as if a proponent wrote it. Proponents contributing is fine, but the article should not look like it was written by a proponent. It should be written as if by a neutral observer instead. Arguments in favor and against a position should be presented. Every article should be neutral in itself, not by the inclusion of other non-neutral articles in the encyclopedia. -- ] 11:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
::Okay, reading it again, I think I misunderstood their position. So each side will get a chance to state its case, or something? Still, I think an article should be completely neutral and not switch back and forth between POVs. Each side's case should be presented, but it should be presented neutrally. -- ] 12:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


== POV/Vandalism from proxy ==
What do you think of a block on this (very well known) IP? Here's some edits they have made since being unblocked:

# Blanking part of Jim Nussle
# POV pushing / removal on Marilyn Musgrave (see further revisions for sources)
# Blanking part of James K. Polk
# "Greatest President ever" on James K. Polk (Unsourced, untrue, testing?)
# Removal of true statements <s>Tony Trupiano </s> Thad McCotter (see further revisions for sources)
~ Cheers {{User:Αchille|2006-02-01|14:26}}

:I don't think a block would stand for long, based on the . Has anyone made any progress talking to the network admin's and working out a solution to bypass the proxy so that more fine grained blocking can be done? If not, someone with the necessary skills should. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

::IP was blocked for 3 hours {{User:Αchille|2006-02-01|15:28}}

Post blocking there is still more vandalism:
In the article for ] removing references to ]:
:"''Musgrave received $30,000 in campaign contributions from former majority leader ]'s ].''"
This violation occurred 14:16, 1 February 2006.

In the article for ] removing references to percentage of vote received in defeat for for ]:
:"''Lungren received 38% of the vote.''"
This violation occurred 01:05, 2 February 2006.

==George W. Bush's Sixth State of the Union Address==
] continues to vandalize ] by moving it to incorrect titles and insisting that it's actually the fifth. He insists that Wikisource is somehow making up Bush's 1st state of the union speech, or implies that it was not technically his s. of the u. speech. He also keeps on changing the content to say that this is the fifth, even though there is already a separate page for the fifth - ]. Please block him. ] 17:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:This is a content dispute, not vandalism. If he commits a 3RR violation, I'll block him, but otherwise work it out on the talk page. Personally, I agree that using the year makes much more sense than the ordinal number. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 17:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
::This is not a content dispute. He's lying about plain facts. Whether or not 2006 is used in the title is irrelevant. Neither one of us cares. He's just trying to use the wrong number, 5 instead of 6, in the title. ] 20:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:::The only reason I bothered to intervene in what was at first a mistake and now a silly, petty debate is that I didn't remember any inaugural SOTU. Upon investigation, I found that it is a fairly common idea that officially there was no SOTU that year. Now, there was an address in 2001 that played the same role as a SOTU and for all intents and purposes was a SOTU. Except it wasn't, officially speaking. It was in fact called by another name. To call it a SOTU without explanation is a statement of error.

:::Beyond the fact that last night's address was officially Bush's fifth State of the Union, I agree with every other editor that it just makes more sense to categorize them by year.

:::But I'm curious... can you provide any documentation that the "official title" of last night State of the Union address was "Sixth State of the Union Address" as you claim in your revert? Any authoratative source at all?

:::Seeing as I'm the only one who has , I'm guessing that you can't support your position. But hey, calling me a liar and a vandal works too, I guess. ] 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

::::The , , and the disagree with you. This took 5 minutes of Google searching. The other side is no longer completely wrong, the question is do you chose to acknowledge it and leave the debate to discussion or not? ] 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== Sockfest ==

Following the deletion of ] for the eighth (or is it ninth?) time, and the sockfest at DRV, I have gone through the contribs of those users with edits in the deleted history; Here they are:
::*{{vandal|Glenzierfoot}}
::*{{vandal|Muillern}}
::*{{vandal|Rulcliffe}}
::*{{vandal|Rahlmanik}}
::*{{vandal|Guvan}}
::*{{vandal|Corn_Blade}}
::*{{vandal|Bonfireman}}
::*{{vandal|Kinghorn}}
::*{{vandal|Julia_Redmare}}
::*{{vandal|Anilocra_II}}
Having reviewed the edit histories and failed to find a single good-faith edit from any of them, and some already indef-blocked because of p] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:Concur --] ] 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== ==

I wanted to draw some attention to a struggel I've been having with an anon IP on the Safe Sex article. I was trying to make the page more neutral getting rid of pharses like "Use a Condom" and be objective - as an encyclopedia should be. But I keep getting reverted, along with anyone who believes the same as me. I have used up my 3rvts and don't want to exceed it so I was wondering if there is a compromise that could be made. ] 00:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*Um, yes, you kept tyring to slip in comments about HIV and AIDs being unproven, and this isn't the place for this anyway--] 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
**I was just making a point, read the conversation, before making snide remarks. Oh and at the end of the conversation the IP 64.12.116.198 accused me of Trolling, which is a Personal Attack. ] 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
***Not if you're a troll, which you do seem to be--] 00:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
****Please stop making personal attack, I'm not a troll. I've contributed whole articles to wikipedia, and I don't make personal attacks. ] 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*****Really, so you're not currently in the process of spamming all the users in the Catholic Wikipedians Category to reinsert your HIV comment?--] 00:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*******I'm not spamming them all look for yourself, I've just posted comments on the pages of the few who've helped me in the past. And I'm not attempting to restore anything about HIV but just to make the section on bodily fluids more neutral and objective. 64.12.116.198 doesn't appreciate this, and is reverting (he's exceeded 3rvts by the way). Oh yeah, it also seems that you might be him under a dynamic IP. Maybe an Ammendment should be made the the 3rvt rule for reverting IPs who often attempt nothing but vandalism. ] 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*Not feeding anymore--] 00:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*I'm not a Troll and you are a non-user. You can't even get an account. You have to hide behind a dynamic IP making things harder for real users who like to follow the rules. Please can some real user help me out, or review the case. I'm not a troll. ] 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's AOL, which sucks. I'll rangeblock both ranges. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 01:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*Well, that was a horribly inappropriate response--] 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
== Please STOP... ==
Stop protecting articles linked from the main page. This is not a new policy and yet it's becoming a daily problem for those of us who patrol WP:PP and WP:RfPP. I don't care if the article is being hit every minute. Pages linked from the main page can only be protected to clean up lingering vandalism. That is all. I know. There's an edit war going on as well, but honestly, SP wasn't meant for that anyway. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
: Semi-protection was used for an edit war? Absolutely not. ] is '''''not''''' for edit wars, much less for articles linked from the ]. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:Absolutely! Anything linked from the main page should '''not''' be semi-protected. Please see ]. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:: What happens if ] is linked from the main page? ] (]) 01:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Then we don't protect it.--] <font color="#FC0FC0">]</font> 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::I think most folks just don't realize what's linked off the main page. There are, after all, quite a lot of things with links on any given day. I think it'd be a good idea to have soem sort of "quickref" box on ] that's somehow updated with all the articles that are linked off the main page on any given day. Maybe one of you technowizards can figure out the best way to do that? &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hmm, that sounds terribly complicated. We only have ], not ], after all ;).--] <font color="#FC0FC0">]</font> 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::I dunno, would it be? Is there anything similar anywhere? Maybe like the open tasks template? &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Hmmm, that would be nice, but I fear at the moment we'd have to do it by hand unless someone writes up a bot to do it. Hands up, anyone? Also, we'd need a suggestion for making the backwater that is RfP more prominent, or having said box appear somewhere prominent. We could transmit it into admins brainchips, I suppose, when the Foundation gets around to issuing them. Absent a technical solution, I suppose reminders on talk pages of thusly protecting admins, and notes like this on a periodic basis are the best means of alerting people. I imagine it's usually an honest enough mistake. Oooh, perhaps we could add a list of "current mainpage articles" to the CVU's messagebar thingy? -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::All good ideas. On the aforementioned cartoon article, we have people who are reprotecting the page despite being told of the policy. I like the CVU idea, especially since we know what the FA is going to be ahead of time. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::It has been protected again by ]. I have not unprotected it yet because I am not as familiar with main-page politics, but I was under the impression that this was frowned upon, and this discussion seems to confirm that. --] 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::I've unprotected it. ] | ] 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::As have I. *sigh* ] <sup>]</sup> 22:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Out of interest, where is this policy? I've never come across it before. ]] 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:It's not "policy", but the reasons can be found at ]. --] <font color="#C46100">]</font> 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::It is also in the ] itself. And it's followed by all of the RfP patrollers I know of. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==It's back...==
''']'''--] 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:Nominated for deletion at ]. Though after it was deleted from the Misplaced Pages namespace, I wonder if it's not eligible for speedy deletion... —] • ] • ] 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::John, you can pay attention to a private page on someones own account, yet won't give a damn about me? Please this is upsetting, and distressing. ] 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:::My name is not John and I have no idea what you're on about. —] • ] • ] 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::::I was using it to mean anyone as in general - as in Jimmy which is what I meant to say, and I've taken a short break to calm myself, but what I mean is that I have been hounded by IPs and have written out several complaints and no one cares. Could you please take a look at the section below. Thanks, ] 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Need help ==

This is a copy from ]:

<nowiki> == Not blocked == </nowiki>

has by far exceeded the 3rvt thing, and has now vandalised ] yet again. Could you block him for me? Oh and can I revert it without getting blocked? ] 01:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

*--] 01:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He also vandalised the ] 01:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*as I said, you're dealing with a troll, who first calls me a coward for having a dynamic ISP, then blames 6 day old vandalism on me, yep--] 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
**Please someone help me! This IP is very upsetting, I've just been trying to contribute, and then every IP in town, or atleast all IPs operated by this one person, have come after me joining up, and calling me names. Being called "Troll" doesn't usually affect someone, but when it's said repeatedly and no one does anything about it it starts to hurt. Please could some admin help me, ] 01:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
***"Just been trying to contribute" doesn't exactly sum up . "Trying to push an anti-contraception POV" is rather more accurate. --]]] 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*****Yes it does. I may have a bias, but if the information is firmly grounded should it be ignored??? ] 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

*can somebody remove this nonsense from here?--] 01:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:64.12.x, ] call ] a troll. And please don't take advantage of your dynamic IP to break ]. ], if you're exasperated with a content dispute and the edit-warring is out of control, please feel free to list the article at ]. ] 01:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::That's actually a good idea--] 03:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The edit summaries were inappropriate, but the anon didn't violate 3RR, as far as I can see. ] ] 01:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

======
Changed 3 words, , which I still don't have the slightest idea what it means--] 02:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:Oh you can drop the whole damn thing, I'm going to play in the corner you and your dynamic IPs immaturely boxed me into. ] 02:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::I don't quite know what that means either--] 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::You don't quite know the english language, do you? ] 02:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::personal attacks<!--aimed at me--> aside, what if anything does christmas have to do with birth control and quotation marks?--] 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
This request for arbitration is closed. ] and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, {{Vandal|Johnski}}, or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --] ] 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:Wait a minute! Semi-protected permanently?! That's a violation of ]. ]|] 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

::The only wording that could be construed to cause a violation is that it says "A page can be temporarily semi-protected". That doesn't actually prohibit longer term use of it. And nothing says semi prot in this case is permanent either. - ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::Just to be clear: "The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so." That's a normal application. ]·] 19:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:I have indef blocked {{Vandal|KAJ}} as a sockpuppet of ] ] <sup>]</sup> 14:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

==3 Tools==
''(moved from AN/I)''

I recommend that admins add my monobook.js code to their monobook. I currently have Lupin's anti-vandal tool (which IP and fitltered edits), an Auto-AFD lister tab (when you click edit), EDIT: Afd closer and relist tabs, and a "revert as vandalism" link that appears near rollback but has a vandalism summary, other than the more vague rollback summary, so you can use either when fit. Have fun on RC patrol :)!''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
: Not related at all to this, but do you have an automatic AFD closer too? ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 06:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::Opps, this should not be on Incidence, I'll move it. And no I dont, between auto-AFD list and AllayUnion bot, I think we can manage. I'll move this though.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 06:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::] has an auto-AFD closer. See ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">''']]]''' <small>{]}</small></span> 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Great, added to monobook.''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::I modified that afd closer to do cfd closings, but didn't take the time yet to make it autoselect between afd / cfd...since I do cfds all the time but haven't done an afd in forever. Its near the top of my monobook if someone wants to combine the two. --] 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: Let me know when you have developed a tool for suppressing large and garishly-colored signatures on discussion pages! ;) j/k. --] 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::Who are you refering to in specific?...I can think of a few names. I don't mind pics in sigs, just ''tiny'' ones :).''']'''<sup>]|]|]</font></sup> 16:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Tony is of course just unsatisfied at his boring sig and this is a cry for help to spruce his up. I think blinking pink text with a handfull of images would be much better. &nbsp;]]] 02:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::*Try ] in monochrome mode :P ] 02:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure when it started, but all my script tools stopped working after a while and my monobook.js file doesn't even display properly when I try to view it. In a strange twist, I can view other people's monobook.js files, and I can only view my own when I log off and view it anonymously. Can someone point me to an appropriate help page, or should I be posting this on ]? (I'm using Mozilla 1.5, BTW) --]]]] 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
*Have you tried refreshing your cache? (hold shift and click "reload"). ] 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I have blocked {{vandal|Turkmen}} for 24 hours for disruption and as a suspected sockpuppet of {{vandal|Jason Gastrich}}. Turkmen is edit warring to insert special pleading into ] and ], two unaccredited universities. Turkmen denies being Gastrich (he may indeed be a meatpuppet not a sock) but the pattern of edits, comments and general behaviour is highly suspicious. He asserts that I am part of his war, but I'm not, I'm just cleaning up after Gastrich's sock-fest a couple of days ago. Both articles are semi-protected, which means the usual technique of creating a sock and piling right in no longer works.

Latest on ] is to add some "notable alumni" previously added by a Gastrich sock, claiming "consensus". I've re-read the Talk page several times and can't see that consensus. I am taking that up with the other editors in the article.

Anyway, it may be seen as contentious, so I'm bringing it to other admins' notice. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:Update: "Turkmen" just added the webpage http://michaelnewdow.com to ] (an atheist). Who owns http://michaelnewdow.com? Well a quick search at http://www.checkdomain.com/ shows it's registered through www.godaddy.com, which "Domain servers in listed order: NS1.JCSM.ORG, NS2.JCSM.ORG" Yes, Jesus Christ Saves Minsitries (i.e. Jason Gastrich). It's cybersquatting. Same at ]. Jason Gastrich owns anthonyflew.com ; also documented re the skeptics annotated bible. It seems reaosnable to conclude that Turkmen is a sock (in fact probably excessively naive to conclude anything else). - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Bling-chav ==



This user ought to be blocked. He goes round randomly nominating people, including himself, for adminship and votes willy-nilly on RfA. Whilst he has nominated me, I was going to wait a bit longer before nominating myself for adminship. Also, he puts the welcome template on userpages and usertalkpages of users who are not new. To me (although I have no proof) he could well be a sockpuppet of User:Piedras grandes, best known as inventor of the horriffic Template:bad, Template:Sm and Template:Good. --] 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We not going to block someone for that! His votes on RFA will be ignored. I suggest that you refuse the nomination and ask for it to be deleted. ] | ] 16:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Question on the new "Belvedereposter" sockpuppet ==

A certain user "Mrbelvedereposter" has for some time contributed nothing but errant nonsense with his multitudinous sockpuppets (See ]), but now one of his accounts ] is trying to claim he's not that bad...? Etc...? I don't know what to do in this case so I'm asking here. If this is the wrong location, I request someone let me know so I can ask wherever's best. Thanx ] 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:Blocked. I suggested that if he wants to contribute usefully, to use another nickname. ] ] 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:There are also some weird edits made by ] on that page. He moves and comments about the MrBelvedere and technically speaking there's nothing wrong with those edits, but it is strange since his only edits involve comment and moving the posts. ] <small>(])</small> 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
::Please do not block me. I was just trying to be helpful. I want to fight vandalism, not make it. ] 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::: As long as '''Helpfulposter''' will not vandalize, I see nothing wrong with his participation, even if he ''was'' Mr. Belvedere. As far as I know, he's not BANNED, so he's welcome to come back under a different name. ] ] 02:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==]==
I'be blocked this user for 24 hours for legal threats --] 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:He/she is still making legal threats on their Talk page. If they continue when the block expires, it should be extended. ]|] 00:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::I have indef. blocked since he is still making legal threats and standard practice is to block people who threaten legal action until such time as they have withdrawn their threats and/or the legal action has ceased. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 01:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:An indefinite block hardly seems appropriate here. ] specifically says that blocks are considered on a case-by-case basis, and the comments on the ] are a discussion of the reason behind the original 24 hour block (which would have been appropriate in any case for disruption). ] ] 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::Standard practice is to block until the threats are withdrawn or the legal action is over and this user has seriously threatened to report Misplaced Pages and its users in Britian to the police so I think a perm block is more than appropriate unless of course this user states that they are not planning to report Misplaced Pages editors to the police and start legal action. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I agree with Jtkiefer. When he withdraws his threats, the block can be removed. Comments such as "Block me all you want, there's another 1,000+ people who use this IP address, and I can get a new IP address in 5 seconds" suggest that he is not yet amenable to this position, and the block should remain in place, in my opinion. &mdash; ] ] 02:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Well apparently it doesn't matter what we think since Physchim62 has undone the block and hasn't even bothered to give the courtesy of noting it here. I would just like to note here that I am reblocking, some things are needed and taking care of disruptive users who threaten to have other wikipedia users arrested (or at least attempt to do so) is one of them so I am going to reblock even though if at all possible I do not want to get into a wheel war over this. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 02:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::::*Seconded. Legal threats are not to be tolerated. Also, the account has hardly any useful edits and seems to be created mainly to inflame the debate on those Jyllands cartoons. Don't feed the troll. ] 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to get into a block war, don't worry. All the same, if this editor were serious, an indef. block would seem like a very good way of provoking her further, and might end up in her going to the the Police. That is to say, the exact opposite of what we are trying to acheive. ] ] 02:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:Looks like a good block to me. Legal threats -- even ones that are less than serious -- are blockable until such time as they're rescinded or resolved, because of the potential chilling effect they can have. Beyond which, this account has pretty much only been used to make disruptive edits. &middot; ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 02:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::I agree. You should note that a block does not mean that we are impinging on their right to take legal action, however it does mean that if they are actually taking legal action then they should not be allowed to cause us more grief while it is ongoing. - ] 02:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::It should also be noted that nobody has a '''"right"''' to edit Misplaced Pages and if your threatening to get other users arrested I think it's fairly safe to say that the person has forfeited the privilege of editing. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is under any illusions as to the intentions of this editor, please read the following comment they made on their talk page:
:Block me all you want, there's another 1,000+ people who use this IP address, and I can get a new IP address in 5 seconds. This "Wiki principal" is absolutely comical, you're basically saying that if I come on here and slander someone, they say they will sue me, THEY are committing an offence in giving a, completely legitimate, valid and understandable "legal threat"? ] 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like good faith editing to me. I suspect that this editor is the same one who was blanking the Ruzwana Bashir VfDs and their talk page, but have no way of verifying this without someone with CheckUser status confirming. - ] 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:] certainly suggests this yes. Note that she "won" on that one, as Jimbo ordered a blanking. ] ] 03:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::This user contacted me via email (using a fake address), asking for the IP address to be unblocked, The user claims that he/she has contacted the relevant people and he/she is no longer making legal threats. I have not unblocked the IP however. --] 20:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==Blocking of User:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow==
I have blocked ] for making personal attacks at Dyslexic Agnostic's talk page. Namely, , . I have placed a notice advising him of the block, but I place a notice here so that other admins can review my actions regarding the situation. ] ] 10:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:Seems fair. How long was he blocked? ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 10:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::24 hours, sorry. ] ] 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::Checked the ]. One day seems fair to me, and if he doesn't stop when he comes back I'd be in favour of a longer block. ]]</font> <sub>(]+])</sub> 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::I based the length of time on the fact that he has received a 24 hr block for personal attacks before. , but agree a longer block could well be necessary. Note, there is an ] between the two at present. ] ] 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::::No objections here.--] 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

== User:GoatSe ==

Hi, I was blocked by user:inter yesterday. He reverted an edit by a vandal to the page on Nick Griffin the last version by me and then proceeded to ban me with the rather cryptic message goatse ahahaha lolololol.

He didn't leave any message, so i'm not sure what his reasoning was, but I would appreciate it if someone would unblock me (user:GoatSe), so that I can continue to contribute.

It's very frustrating as people were telling me to sign up rather than editing under my IP and now I'm banned due to the pettiness of one user.
: I must have mistaken the anon I reverted as you. My bad since this seems to be the case. The image used for the vandalism was a penis, so I assumed you were trying to be funny with the stupid Goatse.cx gimmick and banned you. ]\<sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what has happend here. But your contributions show no evidence of vandalism - so I'm unblocking you. I've dropped a note to the blocking admin, mitakes happen and this ''seems'' to be one. The lesson to us admins is always use helpful block summaries, and drop notes on userpages. --] ] 11:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::I also assumed Goatse was a vandal the first time I came across him. But if you choose a name associated with vandalism, you really are asking for it. ]] 12:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::'you are asking for it' is not grounds to ban me, any more than it is grounds for anything else. Anyway, there are two autoblocks still in place. Could someone kindly remove them. Thanks
::::And don't forget to sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> :-) ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 13:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::::That's a thorny ethical issue when you get down to it. "You're asking for it" or "your username is suspicious" ''shouldn't'' be grounds to ban someone. That's the kind of reasoning that leads to "she shouldn't have worn a miniskirt in that part of town". Yet, on the other hand, choosing a username like yours is rather like walking into a bank wearing a black ski mask and wondering why people are giving you funny looks. It's not fair, it's not justified, but it ''is'' understandable. —] <small>(])</small> 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This username is not "suspicous", it's innapropriate. ].--] <font color="#FC0FC0">]</font> 00:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

: The reason for my block was that I thought he was the offending user vandalising with an image of a penis. That logical leap is about a nanosecond away. I didn't stop and see that it was indeed an anon I actually reverted. The username is inappropriate and this user will probably take some heat for it sooner or later. ]\<sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 01:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

== More about ], ], &c. ==
Please, please, please someone step in and review the situation. ] just returned from his 48-hour 3RR block and is continuing his campaign for his POV. Perhaps I could have handled this differently, and that's why I'm hoping that someone else will step in. --] (]) 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

::Did ] just break 3RR again in ], or am I counting correctly?--] 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Hello there, is there any admin out there, paying attention and reading this? Appleby has been blocked for an additional 72 hours. Katefan0 suggests that the page be protected while we resolve this issue.
:::In my opinion, there are 3 pages involved: ], ] (capital letters), and ] (small letter). Discussion already took place, mostly in ].
:::I would say that Appleby is in the minority opinion, but I am willing to participate in any poll or arbitration. Please advise what to do.--] 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==Possible imposter of me?==
I think {{vandal|SWD1nceayear}} is an imposter of me. His only edits are to his user page, user talk page and my talk page. ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:I saw that. I didn't block him because he didn't attack you, but I will if you want. ] ] 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::Yeah, it might be better to block him. ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Done. ] ] 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

==Need blacklist help==
Given the increase in vandalism using tinyurl and tinylink to link to malware sites, I've tried adding them to ], but it's not working. Help would be appreciated. ] 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:They're using url123.com now, too. &mdash;] (]) 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

::I've seen url123.com, tinyr.us, xrl.us, tny.se and I think tinylink.com -- ] 06:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==

I'm fairly new to Misplaced Pages and came accross the list above. Whilst it seems that a lot of work has gone into compiling it, at present it seems to contain a lot of unverified information that could be considered libel. I thought about going through the list and deleting the unreferenced items but that would still leave the potentially libelous material in the article history. I'm not sure if this is the best place to raise it but I would appreciate if one of you guys could take a look. ] 21:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:Instead of removing the non-referenced subjects, lets find references for them. They had to be found someplace to get added to the list. ] <sub>(] ])</sub> ] 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:: Isn't that assuming good faith to the extreme? ]|] 22:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
:: No, if there is not a ] source cited (]), then the article should be removed from the list/category immediately. Move it to the talk page for discussion if you are concerned that the information might be lost, but there is absolutely no reason to expose Misplaced Pages to a lawsuit in this manner. Best regards, ] 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
(''after edit conflict'')
:The list itself admits that it is incomplete: I have removed all entries for which there was no reference as ''per'' ]. I might note that a large number of these athletes had no article about them, and, on the side of the coin, several well-known doping cases (]) were unreferenced. If editors wish to use their ] in this way, they should (IMHO) take more care over such things. ] ] 22:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
::This is what categories are for, surely? The editors on individual articles will quickly spot and remove bogus categories, whereas the mailicious or clueless addition of names to a list might go unnoticed. ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

==3RR==
I know this ain't the place to list 3RR but it's an unusual case. At the {{article|Travis Tomko}} article there is a vandal that keeps readding false quotes to the article. I was going to list the vandal at ] but it's more than one IP address and account. I fact it's 10 vandals.

*{{vandal|64.53.167.36}}
*{{vandal|65.1.202.231}}
*{{vandal|70.176.118.43}}
*{{vandal|72.137.14.157}}
*{{vandal|80.255.207.66}}
*{{vandal|81.179.103.228}}
*{{vandal|82.10.11.8}}
*{{vandal|86.135.185.136}}
*{{vandal|LOL_nobelium}}
*{{vandal|The_Boogeyfan}}

Can we get blocks on the users or semi-protection on this article? ] <sup>]</sup><sup>]</sup> 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:I'll semi protect it for a day or so. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

==Old/orphaned VfD==
I stumbled upon an old VfD that was never properly listed and dating back to 2004. What's the policy regarding those? MfD? Speedy? Move to AfD and re-list? Leave alone? Thanks.&#160;— ]] 04:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:Be careful: the listing method probably was different back then. Didn't VfD have a time when old discussions were unlisted? The best course of action would probably be to leave it alone (and take a look at the article, just in case). --] 04:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

== Blocking an IP but allowing trusted users from that IP ==


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
Hello, I am an editor with over 3000 edits under my belt, but a public IP I sometimes use is currently blocked (160.83.73.6)... is there any way for Misplaced Pages to keep blocking the IP for anonymous edits but allow me to log in when I am here and still edit away? ] 04:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
:Not yet, but see ] for a proposed policy about it. -] ] 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
::] (] • ]) was blocked for 48 hours for "long-term vandalism", but only has one warning on its talk page dating back to 2004. The majority of the edits were made in good faith. Seems like an unjust block.&#160;— ]] 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
] '''Technical news'''
:::Thank you for lifting the block! I think ] is an excellent idea though, as anytime you have enough people using a proxy IP there is going to be anonymous vandalism. They should at least have to make a new account each time they try to vandalize... ] 04:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
== Correcting image username ==
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
Regarding ]. Can someone rename it to Jetstream31.eastern.airways.arp.750pix.jpg? The image is actually of a Jetstream 31, not a 41. The image name is inaccurate and might lead to confusion. Only one article links to it and I will correct the link once it's done. ] 04:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:Done. The only way (AFAIK) is to delete the image and re-upload, which I've done. However, since the image is PD, I uploaded it to commons. ]. -] ] 04:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
::Looks good, thanks. ] 05:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
==Sock Bug==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
Sock Bug is Back. Could'nt even keep the sig active. ] 05:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->


== user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of ] violation, unfounded vandalism allegation ==
I am engaged in a debate here, and this mess could prove detrimental. Thought it was quashed.
{{archive top|result=I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per ]. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. ] 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Heading to ] as well. ] 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
repost from archive:
*I have no clue what you mean by "sock bug", but note that ] is deprecated. ] 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to ]), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that ] rejects some basic principles of the project: ] means that a bold edit may be reverted to the '']'' and goes on to say {{tq|don't restore your bold edit, don't ] to this part of the page, don't engage in ], and don't start any of the larger ] processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the ''sqa'' with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the ''sqa'', counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned <s>material</s> template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says {{tq|BRD is optional, but complying with ''']''' and ''']''' is mandatory}} but Uwappa has done neither.
==VIRUS link==
A bunch of sockpuppets continue to post a virus link at ].&#160;— ]] 08:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing it up, ] has been indefinitely blocked. Posting links meant to infect people's computers with viruses is unnaceptable and cannot be tolerated. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 08:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
::More socks are posting the link again. It might also be a good idea to remove the edits, with the url in the edit summary.&#160;— ]] 08:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:::I have also blocked ] who took over as soon as I blocked the original guy. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 08:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
::::] blocked, yet another sock. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 08:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::Here are a few more socks:
:::::*<span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span>
:::::*<span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span>
:::::*<span class="plainlinks">] (] &bull; ] &bull; &bull; ] &bull; )</span>
:::::Thanks&#160;— ]] 08:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::All indef. blocked <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 08:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, ] and ].
:Is the link the same as the one ]? If not, it should be added to the blacklist. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 15:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not exactly sure if it is the same. The posted link auto redirected to tomrfkaxgsys DOT on DOT nimp DOT org website (GNAA?). My virus scanner warned me of "VBS:Malware " and blocked the connection.&#160;— ]] 20:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Yes, *.on.nimp.org is the same as last time: ]. --] 22:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
::::I thought that was already added to the spam filter? ]|] 23:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::It was but the spam filter only prevents someone from saving a link to a banned site (or domain in this case) someone can still save a link to a domain that redirects automatically to the banned domain. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


'''Diffs:''' ''(all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 ) ''
== Request for rollback privileges poll closing soon ==
* : Uwappa replaces {{tl|Body roundness index}} with a substantially changed new version
* : JMF (me) reverts to the previous version, with edit summary "sorry but this version is not ready for release. I will explain at talk page."
* : JMF opens ] at template talk page (and leaves notifications at the talk pages of the articles that invoke the template).
* : Uwappa responds minimally at template talk page. {{midsize|] ]}}
* : Uwappa counter-reverts to their new version of the template, no edit summary.
* JMF reverts the counter reversion with edit summary "see WP:BRD: when BRD is invoked, the status quo ante must persist until consensus is reached"
* : Uwappa counter-reverts the template again, no edit summary.
* : at ], JMF advises Uwappa of the BRD convention.
* : {{u|Zefr}} contributes to BRD debate.
* : At Uwappa's talk page, JMF notifies Uwappa of edit-warring using {{tl|uw-editwar}} with edit summary "I advise strongly that you self-revert immediately, otherwise I shall have no choice but to escalate."
* At ], JMF comments out invocation of the template, with edit summary "use of template suspended pending dispute resolution . See talk page."
** (a series of reverts and counter reverts follow, in which Uwappa alleges vandalism by JMF. Neither party breaks 3RR.)
* At their talk page, Uwappa rejects the request to self-revert and invites escalation. Edit summary: "go for it".


* ] reverts the counter-reversion of the template to re-establish ''sqa''
The ''']''', a poll to gauge consensus on whether good contributors who are not admins should be given the rollback privilege, is closing at 00:00 UTC on Tuesday, <s>] ]</s>. If you haven't weighed in, please do so! ] (] | ] | ]) 11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:...*FEBRUARY* Month lag i guess, heh. --] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O (])</sup> 15:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


* Uwappa reinstates their counter-reversion of the template.
==Accidental block (urgent)==
* Uwappa contributes to the BRD discussion only to say "See also ] for escalation in progress.".
] is unable to edit, apparently because his IP address has been blocked (due to actions of another person using his computer?), and has become rather angry about that. I request an explanation, and perhaps an unblock. - ] 14:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
* JMF reverts to ''sqa'' again, with edit summary " rv to consensus version, pending BRD discussion. That is now also a WP:3RR violation." {{midsize|My 3RR challenge was not valid as reversion was outside the 24-hour window.}}
*Neither Ipblocklist nor the block log has any mention of this user. If he were sharing an IP with another blocked user, he could have been hit by the autoblocker, but that should show up in the ipblocklist and it does not. So either the list is broken, or Pomegranite is mistaken. ] 14:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF advises Uwappa to take a break from editing.
**FWIW, when you unblocked me earlier tonight I was still getting autoblocked over an hour later. Eventually another admin had to reblock me for 5 seconds, undo the autoblocks, and all was well. Someone might want to ask a dev if the autoblocker (or blocking in general) is broken. —] • ] • ] 14:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
* At their talk page, Uwappa alleges ] violation. I will leave it to others to decide whether the allegation has merit.
***Your name was not even in the block list when I unblocked you; I had to do it manually. Weird. ] 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
*How would it show up in the blocklist? If the IP was autoblocked, then any user using that IP will be unable to edit, but accounts are not autoblocked, nor do they appear in the blocklist. Or do they? --] (]) 14:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
**If you edit from an IP recently used by a blocked user, the system automatically blocks you (to prevent the blockee from simply getting a new account). This should show up in the block log as "autoblocked because you share an IP". ] 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
***What if the blocked user was just using an IP, not a username? ]] 15:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
*Pomegranite seems to be a student, so it wouldn't be surprising if she shares an IP with a vandal. I don't understand Radiant's comment either, but I'm not very well-versed in these things. ]] 14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
**I've done a manual unblock, but I don't know if that'd actually help. ] 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


---
Usernames aren't "autoblocked" really; they are just disabled because the underlying IP is blocked. There is no actual block placed against the account; when the block of the IP is removed, the username will immediately unblock. IPs, however, actually have a physical autoblock set against them, which must be separately removed (because it is actually a separate block). Thus, "autoblocks" of accounts don't show up anywhere, and are very difficult to find since they don't generate an actual block and the resulting block message. The easiest way to solve this is for the blocked user to identify the IP address they are using (it is listed in the blocked user text they see when they try to edit) and have an admin physically unblock that IP (i.e., enter it directly into the unblock screen.) That will clear any actual blocks of the IP, as well as any autoblocks on the IP. <font color=#696969>] <sup>] • ]</sup></font> 15:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
* At Uwappa's talk page, JMF suggests that we let the status quo stand and we all walk away without escalating to ANI.
* Uwappa replies to refuse de-escalation.


As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --] (]) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:That explains a little mystery I came across recently. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 16:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


:Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
== Civil? ==
::Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it{{snd}} and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. ] (]) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Reposted above from archive, see ]
There has been condierable debate over the behaviour of one {{vandal|Jason_Gastrich}}. ] and there is broad agreement (51:1) that he has violated multiple policies, including ]. He has now posted this diatribe: . I take it as just the rantings of a frustrated POV-pusher, but others state that it violates ] at least and probably ], and there is very strong feeling that any future policy violaitons on Gastrich's part should be met with swift and decisive action. I am obviously not neutral in this matter, so if someone could have a look and see if some kind of action is needed I'd be grateful.


JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:
At the same time, there is some debate over whether peppering a user page with external links is acceptable. I removed a number, certainly not all, Gastrich disputes this: . Guidance from older and more experienced folks would be appreciated. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with your initial reaction that the post was an expression of frustration, a pretty tame "personal attack" on a page where a user ought to get a bit more slack. Let people who haven't been fighting with him deal with any more like this. ] 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


::::You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept ], ], ] and ], and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --] (]) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
== RFAR on Xed ==
:::::Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
The ] against ] is closed . Xed, who remains on personal attack parole, is reminded to avoid personal attacks even in the face of extreme provocation. Xed is warned regarding use of a source such as which does not support the information it is cited in support of. Viriditas is commended for continuing to work with the article substantially improving it while maintaining a courteous attitude toward the difficult user Xed.
:::::I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
:::::Would you like me to repost your escalation? ] (]) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I strongly advise that you read ] before you write another line. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.


For the Arbitration Committee, --] ] 17:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC) ] What would you like me to do now? ] (]) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I did not make a legal threat. ] (]) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::@]: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- ] (]) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tqq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::No it is not a legal threat. It is about <b>"WP rules and regulations"</b>, not about law.
::::* To who would this be a threat?
::::* Which law?
::::* In which country?
::::] (]) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It certainly looks like a legal threat. ] (]) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::@]. Why would a legal department be involved? — ] (]) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Wow, I am glad you asked.
::::::* to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
::::::* It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
::::::* The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
::::::] (]) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. ] (]) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== RFAR on ] and anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx ==


:and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism., . --] (]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The ] against ] and anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx on the matter of ] is closed . TDC (using whatever account or IP address) and the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) are banned from editing ] for one year. If, in three months, either parties can demonstrate good behavior, they may request that the Arbitration Committee lift their ban or parole. If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) edits ], any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week. If TDC or the anonymous Earthlink editor 165.247.xxx (using whatever account or IP address) performs more than one content revert in any 24 hour period, or fails to discuss a content revert, any administrator may, at his or her discretion, block the violator for up to one week.


* I would say that for Uwappa to read this AN filing, reply to it (including something which could ''well'' be taken as a legal threat), and ''then'' immediately go back and the template for the fifth time (with an edit-summary of "Revert vandalism again", no less) shows a serious lack of self-awareness of the situation. ] 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, ] | ] 18:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
*:Putting aside the possible legal threat, if Uwappa's business legal department is involved it seems likely to be a cause of ] or at least a ] which really should have been declared which doesn't seem to have happened. This also means Uwappa shouldn't be editing the article directly. ] (]) 14:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::It’s hard to see a paid or COI element to the behaviour at {{tl|Body roundness index}}. — ] (]) 14:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::It is fairly weird, but I can't see any reason a business legal department would have any interest unless the editor's activity relates to their business activity. ] (]) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I expect it’s just empty talk to get an upper hand in the dispute. — ] (]) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::: Indeed. It is night where Uwappa is now, but my inclination is to see what reaction there is when they restart editing. If it is another revert or a lack of discussion, a block (or at least a prtial block) is indicated. ] 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::], how do you know where I am? Are you spying on me, disclosing personal information?
*::::::* Anybody in the room who ]?
*::::::* Reverted vandalism 3rd time in 24 hours. Anybody curious about what the vandalism is?
*::::::* Anybody in the room that wonders why I had to do the repost? Isn't that odd in combination with "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process"? Did anybody read ]?
*::::::* Did anybody read ] and ]?
*::::::* Did anybody spot any incompleteness in the accusations?
*::::::* Anybody interested in my to answers to the accusations?
*::::::] (]) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::* JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat {{tq|My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.}} You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it ''was''. Meanwhile, you're ''still'' edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::* Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a ]. When called on it you have continually ] instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the ''sixth'' time. (Their edit note adds ''3rd time in 24 hours'': are they boasting of a 3RR vio? {{u|Zefr}} undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --] (]) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== Jason Gastrich ==
* Yes, I noticed. I have pblocked them indefinitely from the template, and reverted that edit myself so that no-one else is required to violate 3RR. ] 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


:* Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous. {{Blockquote|text=An editor must not perform {{strong|more}} than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a {{strong|24-hour period}}.|source=]}}.
Another suspected sock of Jason Gastrich has appeared at {{vandal|Soarin777}}. The user's sole action was to create a new article on deleted subject ]. I have blocked this user, which is I know unusually aggressive, due to strong consensus at ], his known and prolific use of socpuppets in the past, and because in his last comment at his talk page Gastrich made a statement which has been construed as an open admission that the sock/meatpuppets will be unleashed on Misplaced Pages. I am posting this here for peer review of this action, and for notice that similar problems may crop up. - ] <sup>]]</sup>/<sub>]]</sub> ] 23:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
:* Suggestion: Add the following calculator to ]:


{{calculator|id=edits|type=number|steps=1|size=3|default=3|min=0}}
:As long as you have evidence of sockpuppetry and use the phrase "suspected sockpuppet" so they can prove otherwise if they can, I have no problems with it. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifless(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is less than three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifequal(edits,3)|is equal to three.}}
{{calculator-hideifzero|formula=ifgreater(edits,3)|starthidden=1|is more than three.}}


:* ] (]) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== User ] ==
::* From ]; {{tq|Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring}}. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted ''twice'' whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. ] 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
] keeps making personal threats. This user is especially vitriolic. Can an admin check this out? Also note that two of his IPs have been banned previously due to vandalism. --] 01:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:To admins, please ] Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous ]/] talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
==Ambi and deletion==
:In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." ] (]) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
See . {{Admin|Ambi}} seems to be speedily deleting any and all pages tagged with {{tl|prod}}. I'm not sure why; needless to say this is ''not'' the point of ]; it should give the articles five days' respite, and if during those five days any user objects to deletion, the article is not deleted. Indeed, earlier today, several articles were already cleaned up, merged, vetoed or moved to AFD. Please give an alternative to AFD a chance; AFD is frequently said to be less than ideal. ] 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
{{ab}}
*This was closed, but...Uwappa's reply to their block was . Suggest revoking TPA. {{ping|Black Kite}} - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== An inappropriate template being added to many pages ==
== ] ==
*{{userlinks|Oct13}}


A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. ] (]) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
] has repeatedly harassed ] on ]. He/She violates ], ], and ]. I request any form of action to handle this dispute. Thank you. <font color="#000000" face="Quake">]</font><font color="#660033" face="Quake">]</font> 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:Discussion at ]. ] (]) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==
:I've reverted the addition of the template. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Anyone have any details what the situation with that is? I am hesitant to take any actions without details. --] (]) 04:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:The template as been deleted per ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see ]) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from {{u|Oct13}} on this. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:See ] for some of the conversations I've been having with his opponent, "Alex Cain", who has been behaving rather badly for the past few months (personal attacks, petty vandalism, etc) using dozens if not hundreds of sockpuppets as well as anonymous IPs. I have told Cain many times to cut out the personal attacks and take whatever issue he has with Chad Bryant through ], but so far he just continues doing what he's been doing. In turn, he claims that a certain external link on Chad Bryant's page constitutes a personal attack against him, but I see nothing about external links in ], whereas Cain's personal attacks (mostly schoolyard taunts like "douchebag") are much more clearcut. -- ] 06:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== Get-back-world-respect ==
::It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a ] situation here. ] ] 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Copied this from WP:AIV at request of admin ], thinks it's better off here.
::I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.—&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction ==
* {{vandal|Get-back-world-respect}} Originally spammed over a dozen users talkspaces with a paragraph including misrepresnting and insulting remarks against me. I posted on her user talk that said comments were patently untrue, and I'd appreciate if she notified all those users of such. She deleted my comment. I commented again, reinserting my comment and protesting the deletion as bad faith. She deleted my comment. I added it in a third time, along with a warning template against deleting talk space comments." She deleted that. In order not to violate 3RR I stopped there, and instead made a long post citing wikipedia policy about deleting talk space comments, and copied it to my own talk space for posterity, where in both cases I made it VERY clear that if she deleted it again, I would submit this request. She deleted, and I'm submitting the request. ] 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (note timestamp different than original post)
{{atop|1=User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hello, I find that {{user|Ottawahitech}} has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.


: Users are entitled to remove comments from their talk pages. -- ] | ] 04:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.<br>
::but not with the intent to misrepresent, which is against policy. 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. ] 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Then file an RFC, or go to mediation. No-one is going to block GBWR for removing your comment from her talk page. -- ] | ] 04:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:This might be better at ]. — ] (]) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== Simon Says ==
::Moved per request] 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. ] (]) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Their previous block seemed a little bit like ] block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. ] 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:@]: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. ] (]/]) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the ] is what they're looking for. ] ] 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent ] behavior of this user continues on.
:::I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
:::Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
:::Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
:::And that's still all they want. They don't ''want'' to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. ] ] 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
FTR, ] that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] backlog doin' great ==
You've had your fun with me, now I'm going to have my fun with you. I have placed 30 nihlartikles throughout wikipedia, and your job is to find them. Be careful, over half of them have graphics and look very unassuming.


I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.


That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to ''everyone'' who helped make this suck a little less. ] ] 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Simon says find the nihlartikles and revert them. - MilkMan


== Brainhell == == Call for mentors ==


There's a discussion at ] about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are ''assigned'' a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to ''all'' new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- ] (]) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{user|Brainhell}}
:I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) ]&nbsp;] 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
This guy is displaying all the classic traits of a classic troll]]. He's totally bent out of shape over the deletion of a nanostub/weblink placeholder. He simply won't drop the personal attacks, so he's taking a one-week time out. Any reason this shouldn't be permanent or should this be an RfC? I've been as nice as I can be to this user but I'm still being threatened with administrative action and I'm accused of being a "vandal with administrative rights." If he put half the effort into his nanostub as in his protests, he'd have a featured article. Jeez, why do I put myself through this?!? - ] 04:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. ] (]) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- ] (]) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. ] (]) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. ] (] · ]) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. ''']]''' 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
:I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). ''']]''' 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
::I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). ] ] 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. ] ] 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


==Discussion at ]==
Good news: I think this exquisite litle inconvenience is mercifully behind us. I've unblocked the account. - ] 09:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. –] <small>(])</small> 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== History cleansing? == == Kansascitt1225 ban appeal ==


I am posting the following appeal on behalf of {{user21|Kansascitt1225}}, who is considered banned by the community per ]:
Am I correct that efforts have been made to cleanse the revision history of ] of personal info/defamation (that is, about Jimbo)? Because there's still some really nasty stuff in there. I'm aware that the page in question is the worst we have to perform this kind of calculation. Shall I provide diffs? Please advise. Thanks. ] 05:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:There is a more extreme way to do it (deleting the entire page and then deleting revisions one by one) but that A) would probably crash the servers and B) cause tons of issues in the process. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 06:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
::Um, so just not worth worrying about then? Or. . . ? ] 06:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Nothing can be done about it unless it contains something really bad, in which case let a dev and they can remove the edit using their special powers. <small>]<sup>] | ] | ]</sup></small> ---- 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


(keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html}}</ref> Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. ] (]) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
== Saudi Arabia ==
There is a great deal of blanking and other vandalism on ] coming from the IP ranges 212.138.47.xx and 212.138.113.xx Many individual IPs are on their third revert. The problem is that these ranges appear to be assigned dynamically to cover the whole of Saudi Arabia. What to do? For the moment I am sprotecting, as this will acheive the result on the Muhammed cartoons article without blocking editing by legitimate Saudi users. ] ] 06:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}} ] (]/]) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:Please follow the steps at ]. I've added {{tl|sprotected}} to the article and listed it on ]. ] | ] 06:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
* '''(mildly involved) Support'''. I gave feedback on an earlier version of their ban appeal. This is five years since the initial block. Five years and many, many socks, and many, many arguments. But with no recent ban evasion and a commitment to communicate better, I think it's time to give a second chance. -- ] (]) 21:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per asilvering and ]. ] (]/]) 21:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Five years is a long time. Willing to trust for a second chance.] (]) 21:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
* Ideally I'd want to see some indication that they don't intend to ] as the issue seems to be rather ideological in nature and I don't see that addressed in the appeal. I also don't love the failure to understand a lot of issues around their block/conduct and their inability to effectively communicate ] and on their ]. ] (]) 00:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Would a topic ban from Kansas-related topics help? This was floated as a bare minimum two or so years ago. -- ] (]) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I'm not that concerned by the RGW issue. Their communication on this appeal has been clear, they responded to my feedback regarding their unblock request, and they've indicated they'll not edit war and seek consensus for their edits. ] (]/]) 00:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five? In any event it's been a long time since they tried to evade. I'm leaning toward giving a second chance but I'd really like them to understand that walls of text are not a good way to communicate, that they need to post in paragraphs, and that Misplaced Pages is not a place for righting great wrongs. ] (]) 16:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:{{tq|Is my maths just bad or is January 2019 not six years ago rather than five?}} ssssshhh. -- ] (]) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


== Heritage Foundation ==
==Willy on Wheels==
A Willy on Wheels account has just been created by someone on for the usual nonsense. I've cleaned up its initial changes and blocked the account for the next six months but I'd appreciate it if any en:admins would be willing to help the two sco:admins to keep an eye on the situation. -- ] | ] 09:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


There is a discussion at ] that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. ] ] 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
==More Muhammad cartoons problems==


== Deleted contributions request ==
] has been picking up a lot of edits, including some of the kind of really ugly stuff that Jimbo blanked on the ] page. I've taken the somewhat unusual step of blanking the image's talk page, pointing users to the main article's talk page if they want to discuss the controversy, and protecting both the image's talk page and the image itself. Unfortunately I suspect that we will need to maintain this protection for a long time to come. -- ] 09:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|Done and dusted. Good work all. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:The whole thing is just a mess. I'm not usually for protecting talk pages, but I think in this case, it might be wise. --]<sup>]</sup> 11:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was ], which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called ], but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is {{IPvandal|62.200.132.17}}. If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Another idea would be to simply redirect the image talk page to the article talk page. --] 14:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:{{ping|JJPMaster}} The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. ] ] 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
==195.93.21.41==
::@]: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know&mdash;I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Can someone please put a temporary block on this AOL IP? He's wreaking havoc, albeit easily revertable havoc. ]/<FONT SIZE="-2" COLOR="#00FF00">] </FONT> 11:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:::{{ping|JJPMaster}} Done at ]. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. ] ] 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::::@]: The import and merge are {{done}}. Please delete the page now. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|JJPMaster}} I've deleted the page. ] ] 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs . This page was deleted ]. —] 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ] behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from ] ==
==What the hell?==
{{atop|result=Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
'''Stop changing things, damnit:'''
]'s talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with ] which is currently at ] and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my ] allegation comes from at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? ] (]) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*First you change it so anons can't create articles
:Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. ] (]) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*Then you come up with "sprotection" so anons can't '''edit''' articles either
::I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. ]) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. ] (]) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*More often AOL "range blocks" are being thrown around with no consideration for the affected users
*The last straw, you pull deletedpagehistories, taking a function previously available to anyone, and restricting it to admins
*And now, I go to create a user name, and what do I see "''Your password is too short. It must have at least 1 characters''" WTF?? Since when was there a minimum password length?? Since '''never''', what possible reason could you have for changing it?--] 02:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:It's not a password if it doesn't have at least one character, though. Also, see ]: Please don't use such agressive language, thanks.--] <font color="#FC0FC0">]</font> 02:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::But it never used to force you to make a password, just like it didn't used to force you register in order to make edits, now it seems both have become the norm--] 02:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Sometimes changes can be good. Forcing you to have a password makes it more difficult for people to hijack your account, and it does not impact your ability to edit pages. &#126;]]] 02:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! ] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
On a couple of your points: deletedpagehistories was formerly only available to admins, but was amended in August to be visible to all. It had to be pulled again as it removed the ability to get rid of some highly abusive edit summaries. So that change was just a revert. The password thing was switched on a few hours ago, see . -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 02:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}
:I personally can't understand why you'd want a blank password anyway.--] <font color="#FC0FC0">]</font> 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::Well for one thing, if I already have an account with a blank password, I can't use it anymore, since I get "''Login error:Password entered was blank. Please try again.''", when I try to login--] 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::You can request a new password by email. You did set an email, didn't you? -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Right, I didn't bother to set a password, but naturally you assume I'd specify an email address, just in case I ever forgot my non-existant password, and needed to have it emailed to me--] 03:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Besides, I can't be the only person affected by it, just probably the first to notice, eventually people are going to log out of their accounts, only to find themselves 'locked out' so to speak--] 03:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::The anon has an interesting point, how about using a watchlist message or similar to warn existing users that blank passwords will no longer work, while they are still logged in and have a chance to change it. ] 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Brion has said that he will try to get code in tomorrow to force users with blank passwords to establish one on next login. In the meantime, sysops with blank passwords were found, which, I'm sure everyone will agree, is a massive potential security breach, and there is no way in MediaWiki to only disable blank passwords for sysops. --] <strong>|</strong> <font color="#C46100">]</font> 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::: "'''''sysops with blank passwords were found,'''''" Excuse me?? ] 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::Here's the relevant e-mail from Brion: --] <strong>|</strong> <font color="#C46100">]</font> 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::"...a handful of sysop accounts had blank passwords." Brion, '''thank you''' for fixing that. I'm amazed such a major security hole stayed open for so long. ] 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::At any rate, "stop changing things" isn't a strong enough argument in my opinion to prevent the natural evolution and development of Misplaced Pages. Blank passwords are simply unacceptable (again, in my opinion). --] <strong>|</strong> <font color="#C46100">]</font> 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, but the problem is, people who already have blank passwords can no longer login, since the '''login''' screen no longer accepts blank passwords, therefore they have no means of changing their passwords ''or'' logging in, and are essentially banned--] 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::*Is there some way the scripting could be changed, so that while ''creating'' an account with a blank password stays disallowed, an exception could be made for people trying to '''login''' with pre-existing blank passwords, to give them an opportunity to change them?--] 15:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::As ] just said above, Brion is working on code to allow these people to login, but to force them to change their passwords when they do so. --] 16:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::True, but in the mean time, myself, and others like me ''still'' can't access our accounts--] 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::Again, '''still''' can't use my account, wouldn't it make more sense to just reset the change until such time as the scripting change is complete? That way people could use thier accounts in the meantime?--] 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That would be a bad idea. Once the existence of blank passwords was revealed, it became too risky to enable them again. --] 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::So, that means that anyone with a blank password '''is''' as good as banned, since they can no longer log in to change it?--] 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::They will be able to login as soon as Brion's code is ready &mdash; and will be immediately forced to change their passwords. Of course, the sooner you do it (after the code is enabled), the better. --] 22:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Ok, is it done yet?--] 14:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Bluntly, if you were foolish enough to create a user with a blank password, I have very little sympathy for you at all. At any moment anyone else could have logged in as you and changed your password to something else anyway. —] (]:]) 16:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Ok, so let me try this again, does this mean all users with blank passwords are now de facto banned? ''no, there's a patch'' So we'll be able to log in and change our passwords? ''no, of course not, that would be a security problem'' So then all users with blank passwords are as good as blocked? ''no, of course not, we're working on a fix.....'' Reasoning in circles here...--] 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that we need something better than range blocks for dealing with AOL vandals. They hurt innocent users, and do nothing to stop AOL vandals. Not that I have any good idea what would be better, short of forcing all AOL users to get accounts, which might not be entirely popular. Perhaps we should redirect all known AOL IP user pages to a single ANON_AOL psuedo user page? Regards, ] 03:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
:Brion Vibber has been playing with Captchas lately. See wikitech-l for details. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


== Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person ==
And anon, 60 of about 900,000 articles are semi protected. And it's usually for no longer than 3-4 days. --]<sup>]</sup> 06:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The pages are ] and ]. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? ] (]) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
True range blocks on AOL ranges are sometimes needed when an AOL anon goes on a vandalism spree and there's no other way to stop this or even leave a message on that user's talk page (because he doesn't have one, because of AOL's round robin IP allocation). But I suspect that what you are referring to as "range blocks" really means autoblocks. That's an increasing problem because vandals have figured out how to leverage a block on a registered username into a denial of service attack on their fellow AOL users. -- ] 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


:Are they the same person? The date of birth (for ]) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: ]) it's different... <s>Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one,</s> it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), <s>it's quite possibly a waste of time.</s>
:Yep. I'm not a big fan of autoblocks. The idea is good (to stop banned users from posting from their static IP) but it's faulty. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::], this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. ] ] 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a ] kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
:::I'll just cross out that part of the comment. &ndash; ] (]) (]) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a ], instead of here? ]] 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed. ==
== Blocking self-identified pedophiles ==
{{atop|1=] semi-protected until the 23rd. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by {{userlinks|OnuJones}} to ] and ], removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add <nowiki>{{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~</nowiki> to their usertalk page. ] (]) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. ] (]/]) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The userbox {{lt|User pedophile}} is a great way of identifying those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I plan on indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template. I've already blocked the only user to include this template, {{User|Joeyramoney}}. Misplaced Pages has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. If a someone has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to yourself and stay off Misplaced Pages. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare that the Wikimedia Foundation would face if articles were being written by self-identified pedophiles. ] | ] 14:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
::I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the concern is that while the ''articles'' aren't ARBPIA per se, the ''edits'' ({{tqq|changing Palestine to Israel}} ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I would consider the edits to be within the realm of ] ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious ] accounts. ] (]) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. ] (]/]) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{re|Voorts}} It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. ] (]) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. ] (]/]) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Now an IP {{IPlinks|2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B}} has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. ] (]) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Hide this racist edit. ==
:I agree - '''children''' edit Misplaced Pages! We don't want Misplaced Pages to be the kind of place where things like happen. --] (]) 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
{{hat|1=] - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
{{atop|Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --] (]) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}
Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 ] (]) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Don't we already have at least one article that was written by self-identified pedophiles? --] 14:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. ]] 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::Block on sight. No quarter. ] 14:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:Please refer to ], if there are no active RMYWP admins available. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}


== Admin prohibits to delete copyright links ==
:::Is this some strange attempt to test the limits of the 'all are welcome regardless of their views' policy which is one of the fundamental aspects of Misplaced Pages? Or can you actually point to the section in the ] which justifies this? ] | ] 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
{{Atop|This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)}}


In the following topic: Admin refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):
::::This is an application of common sense. There is universal condemnation of pedophiles (and rightly so). Allowing known pedophiles to edit could also endanger younger users. I'd support adding language to the blocking policy to formally justify the blocking of self-identified pedophiles. ] | ] 14:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


*
:Surely the safety of young Wikipedians (from harm of the variety reported to have occured due to chatroom encounters) and Misplaced Pages's reputation as a safe for all website counts? --] (]) 14:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
*


Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. ] (]) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::There aren't any private chat areas on Misplaced Pages, and we keep all edits. Have you considered the possibility that (a) people who include the template may not actually be paedophiles but just including it to inflame other people, (b) Misplaced Pages may have users who are paedophiles but don't want to include the template and identify themselves as such for fairly obvious reasons? If the problem is the template, then delete it. But Misplaced Pages does not ban people merely because they have committed crimes, not even if the crime was murder or treason. So I don't see that this blanket ban is justified. ] | ] 14:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== 96.230.143.43 ==
:::I'm thinking of the safety of the younger Wikipedians (as in the chatroom incidents), not the fact that a user is a criminal or not. I'm also thinking of Misplaced Pages's reputation - we don't want parents to forbid their children from editing when they see confessed paedophiles roaming about. --] (]) 15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Blocked, and ] is thataway →. - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
This user is a frequent vandal on the page ]. I am requesting a block. ] (]) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Blocked. In the future, please use ]. <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Note that Joeyramoney also indicates that he is a mutant, that his user page is BS, and that he is 16. Under the standard definition of the term he '''can't''' be a pedophile because he isn't an adult yet. Sex between minors is not typically considered 'pedophilia'. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 14:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
::Ah, very sorry. ] (]) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== StoneX Group Inc. ==
::Even at 16, I think he'd put a little thought into putting a "pedophilia" template on his user page. If he placed it there in error or as a joke, he can explain this on his talk page. If it is a joke, it's about as funny as identifying oneself as a member of the KKK or a Nazi. ] | ] 15:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I’m concerned about the page at ]
:::Do we automatically block self-identified KKK or Nazis? Anyway, blocking for use of a template seems pointless — in this case, it's almost certainly a joke, and the kind of pedophiles that are actually going to be stalking children aren't going to advertise their problem on the userpage. —] 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::If it is a joke, then the user should be unblocked, with a warning to use better judgement in the future. I'm sure it ''will'' be a rare occasion when someone identifies themself as a pedophile, but should that happen, that person will be blocked. If another admin believes that pedophiles should be editing, they may unblock and I won't reblock. I'm not going to wheel war over this, but I do think it's just common sense. ] | ] 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? ] (]/]) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Permissions Removal ==
:::Funny, that analogy. Last I checked, people aren't blocked for being members of the KKK or being Nazis. Nor are they blocked for believing the Holocaust didn't happen, or being murderers, being rapists, being convicted fraudsters. They ''are'' blocked when they actually go and do something grossly inappropriate - like writing about how lynchings are a good way to keep the race pure, or how the Jewish conspiracy controls wikipedia, or threatening to hunt someone down and stab them - but, traditionally, we wait until they '''actually do that'''.
{{atop|1=Rights...left? - ] <sub>]</sub> 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
:::And, on a more pragmatic note, as many people have noted - I really doubt hunkering by {{tl|User pedophile}} is going to be a productive way to actually find the people we might have to worry about... ] | ] | 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! ] (]) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


:Done. Thank you. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:Yes, all those hideously deviant views he has expressed about, er, obscure songs by the Who. To the best of my knowledge, we already ''do'' have self-identified (by actual words, and everything) paedophiles on wikipedia; I'm sure I remember someone screaming about it before. If you feel so strongly about this issue, dealing with them would surely be more productive than blocking someone who seems to be playing with userboxes. ] | ] | 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ftools is back! ==
::Joeyramoney is a troll, not a paedophile; I've no objection to blocking him for the former. But we don't block people for their sexual orientations. Condemnation of paedophile orientation (as opposed to activity) is certainly not something Misplaced Pages or its administrators should be engaging in. ]] 15:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's <code>ftools</code>, which is live ]. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
:::He's neither. He is a typical teenage boy... and while I found that a loathesome breed even when I was one I doubt it ought to be a blockable offense. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 15:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:{{like}} -] (]) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm glad consensus seems to indicate that blocking people for their beliefs is unacceptable. -- ] 15:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:Note: {{no ping|DreamRimmer}} is now also a maintainer. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:My congratulations/condolences. ] (]) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


:::::Pedophilia is a belief in the same way that hating all blacks is a belief. We don't want either here on Misplaced Pages. ] | ] 15:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


== Block appeal for ] ==
::::::Racist users are welcome on Misplaced Pages but they must leave their prejudices out of their article editing. Likewise any editor who edits an article to express the opinion that sex with children is good is liable to be blocked. But those who include the template are not doing that. Carbonite, I think you should lift your block as it seems to be against consensus. ] | ] 15:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
{{atop
| status = unblock denied


:::::::I will not lift it. As I stated above, I also won't reblock should another admin see fit to unblock. I will play no part in allowing pedophiles (or those identifying themselves as such) to edit Misplaced Pages. ] | ] 15:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC) | result = AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. ] (]) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
}}


I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. {{u|Aman.kumar.goel}} has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see ]). As you can see in the unblock request at ], they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, {{u|Ivanvector}}, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from ] and ] were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:
:There was an article about pedophiles on Misplaced Pages a couple of months ago: "". Apparently, one of the leaders of the movement for "pedophile rights" has an account and edits pedophilia-related articles (], ]) to ensure that they are NPOV (as in, take into account the pedophiles' rights POV). It's a typical piece of sensational journalism, but it's interesting that no news agency picked up the story and ran with it. It was right around the whole Seigenthaler thing, so it's possible that story acted a smokescreen. Who knows what would happen if it were a slow news day and someone at CNN or ABC discovered this now. — ] 15:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from ] (WP:ARBPIA) and also from ] (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
::BAOU/"OfficialWire" is run by the same guy behind ] - and ] - who would publish "WIKIPEDIANS EAT BABIES" if someone suggested it to him. Reading that article may give you some idea as to the veracity of his journalism... ] | ] | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
:::We can't cower in the face of possible ignorant press reporting. The response to the Siegenthaler incident was not a complete ban on articles about living people, but a measured change about anons starting new articles. ] | ] 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "{{tq|The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.}}". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
:For those of the opinion that blocking pedophiles is wrong because it's blocking someone based on their belief, can anyone name another belief that is so universally condemned? ] | ] 15:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


:Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as ] and ]. Looking forward to positive feedback. ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Holocaust denial. Don't think there's a snazzy userbox for it, but there's sure a lot of them on Misplaced Pages. ] | ] | 15:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:::Or canibalism perhaps? Homosexuality, not too long ago? We mention sex, while not too long ago, that was strictly taboo.
:::Still, no matter what your personal feelings, or indeed, the personal feelings of everyone on the planet and in history, as long as an editor's feelings don't stand in the way of editing Misplaced Pages fairly, there is no problem. -- ] 15:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I have to disagree with that. There's a fair percentage of people that could be classified as "holocaust deniers" to some extent. There are even occasional insinuations of denail by rather prominent people. Can you imagine a person in a powerful position even hinting or joking that they liked 8 year-old girls? ] | ] 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support unblock without TBANs and with single account restriction.'''] (]) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


*'''Support''' as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::], ], ], et cetera... and you miss the point. Once you get into saying 'unacceptable - ban on sight' you've got to deal with the people who say the same about homosexuality, inter-racial marriage, et cetera. These things were 'universally condemned' once too... and still reviled by many to this day. There was a time (centuries ago) when pedophilia was generally accepted. Views change. I'm not saying that pedophilia will (or should) become accepted again, but that it is inherently wrong to persecute people for their beliefs - no matter ''what'' those beliefs may be. And in ''this case'' the 'vile horrible monster' may simply have been implying that he likes to have sex with people his own age. --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 15:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:* '''Comment''' "Support as requested" sounds like a canvassed vote, did you mean it in a different way? ] 08:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::::People who beleive in/practice ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], any religion you care to name, invading other nations, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], drinking ], the ], ], ], ], etc, etc, etc, are or have all been villified and hounded to the same or greater extent by the majority of their society as peadophiles currently are. I am not aware of anyone who has been blocked for proclaiming support for any of these - as long as they do not violate NPOV or other Misplaced Pages policies. The same should be true about peadophilia - if we block paedophiles then we are violating the NPOV ourselves by proclaiming that one side is wrong. I will unblock anyone blocked soley for their beliefs. ] 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:*:You need to re-check. , AKG posted a "request" for "unblock". By "as requested" , I meant how AKG requested himself to be unblocked, that is without any topic bans. Also, see ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::* I did AGF, otherwise my sentence would not have included the second clause. I understand what you mean ''now'' but I did not from the original posting. ] 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is {{tq|we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing}}, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates {{tq|someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them}}. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. ] (]) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@], ] from AKG copied over:{{tq2|Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "{{tq|However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT.}}" That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for ]), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. ] ] 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. ] ] 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention ] would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it ]ing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with {{u|Ivanvector}}'s assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the ] that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual ''also'' had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --] (]) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. ] (]) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''': I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that ] applies here. ] (]) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I warned AKG ] for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.] (]) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::To quote what I had said then, "{{blue|I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing.}}" I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. ] (]) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there ''were'' multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add ] on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and ] on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. ] 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. ] (]) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::: Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. ] 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. ] (]) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from ]. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. ] 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
*:I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than ''not'' agreeing to it. -- ] (]) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:: Yes, this is also my concern. I would have ''thought'' that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well ''outside'' that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. ] 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. ] (]) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::: I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. ] 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:*If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ] (]) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::*What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. ] 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. ] (]) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. ] (]) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. are are recent examples from this noticeboard. ] (]) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as ''punishment'', but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. ] (]) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*::Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. ] (]) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per {{u|Ivanvector}}: i.e. dependent on {{blue|a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction}}. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. ]'']''] 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I find myself agreeing with {{U|Black Kite}} - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. ] (]) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. ] (]) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. ] (]) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. ] (]) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --] (]) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). ] (]) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:<s>I would tentatively '''support''' with the TBAN they have now agreed to.</s> I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. ] (]) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support <small>(NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case)</small>. Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. ] (]) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. ] (]) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. ] (]) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:
{{Talkquote|After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from ], I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping {{u|Yamla}}, {{u|The Kip}}, {{u|Black Kite}}, {{u|Caeciliusinhorto-public}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|Vanamonde93}}. Thanks ''']''' <sup>('']'')</sup> 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}}
- ] (]) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)


:Would they also consent to the ] topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. ] (]) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Because real paedophiles that are intent on grooming on Misplaced Pages will really place a siren on their user page to indicate that they are indeed paedophiles. The template should be deleted, and while it ''might'' be worthwhile blocking people because they are paedophiles doing so on the basis of this template is crazy. ] ] 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:: I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. ] 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of ] and ], but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. ]] 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ] (]) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. ''']''' (]) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. ''']''' (]) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*Very, very '''weak support''' on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. ] (]) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support, but''' only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under ]. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. ]] 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - At the end of the day, the ] has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. ] (]) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --] (]) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. ] (]) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. ] (]) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. ] ] 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Import request ==
*I'm inclined to unblock. The kid's page is perhaps a good argument for banning non-encyclopedic userboxes, and maybe a good argument for banning 16-year-olds, and possibly a good argument for banning twits, but we really need to differentiate between banning people for who they are and banning people for what they do. Much as I loathe (for example) Holocaust deniers, until they start putting their crap on article pages, they're just people with stupid ideas. Since most teenagers are pedophiles by definition (since the law considers adolescents to be children), as already pointed out, he can't be one. So, if I were the sort of admin willing to unilaterally start block/unblock wars rather than discussing the issue, the kid would already have been (a) unblocked and (b) told in no uncertain terms his user page makes him have zero credibility and destroys any possible assumption of good faith. --]] 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
**Per the objections above, I have unblocked. For all we know, we could have a convicted murderer editing Misplaced Pages from jail, and I see no reason to object to that. If people are using WP to "pick up" children they deserve a ban; but if they're nonactive pedos, presently in jail, or people with a sick sense of humor that's not for us to deal with. ] 15:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Can you import, ] from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there.<span id="Cactusisme:1736493543617:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</span>
:I am worried by the wording "no obligation to permit deviants to edit". Am I going to be next to be blocked? ] - ] 15:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
:I suppose you mean , which you ''didn't'' create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. ] (]) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Well, they create the page. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::], oh, okay<span id="Cactusisme:1736586978195:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)</span>


== Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24 ==
:: Probably it's like "no obligation" in the same way nobody has a "right" to edit Misplaced Pages/how all editors are welcome to edit at Jimbo's whim. --]]]] 16:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


] this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). ]] 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
::Don't worry Morwen. There will always be enough of us 'deviants' (so classified by some group or another for whatever reason) around that this kind of thing will never happen. Completely 'normal' people are so rare as to be the most deviant of all. :] --] <big><sub>]</sub></big> <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
: Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. ] (]) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
== Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators ==


The Arbitration Committee has resolved by ] that:
''Misplaced Pages has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. '' Agreed, and for this reason I am blocking you because your philosophy deviates from the norm on Misplaced Pages. --] ] 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


{{ivmbox|1=
:IMO, if these editors have not violated any of our policies, especially the cornerstones like ], ], etc. (and haven't preyed on minors like *gasp* me), they shouldn't be blocked. If they start pushing the child-sexing POV or coming on to minors, then give no quarter. But otherwise...well, it's not our problem if they get caught, right? (If Jimbo/the Foundation has decreed that these perverts go, then I'm all for it. But until then, there is no reason to block some people just for admitting they want to have sex with minors.) ] | ] 16:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The ] are amended by adding the following section:
<blockquote>
; Coordinating arbitrators
The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.


Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing ] assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.
:I will lift, on request or when I notice, blocks on people that are unrelated to their edits or other valid rasons for keeping people off of Misplaced Pages. If someone is on death row for murder, and is somehow on the internet and is making good edits, then they may edit here. --] 17:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:
Helloooooo, ]. We've had pedophiles on Misplaced Pages for over two years and nobody's gotten hurt. ], ] among others. We've also had a mailing list thread about this here: . I will work with Improv to unblock anyone who is being blocked for reasons unrelated to their contributions. ] <small>]</small> 17:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
* Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
* Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
* Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
* Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
* Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.


A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.
I concur with Improv above. I have to add that whilst I find the block to have been made in good faith, I would ask that no-one issue a block on the basis of a user box displayed on a user page, but rather discuss the issue here first, for starters. Also, anyone with any concerns regarding someones paedophilic tendencies should ask themselves:
</blockquote>
*''Am I concerned enough to notify the police? If '''yes''', then don't issue a ban, contact the police, a ban may disturb a police investigation. If no, don't issue a block, your concerns are probably groundless; otherwise you would have notified the police.'' ] ] 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
}}


For the Arbitration Committee, ]&nbsp;] 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:You know, I'm thinking now that it probably was wrong to block Joeyramoney merely for using that template - considering that it makes no difference, and Ashibaka's just proved that. Also, that block was not permitted by the ]. --] (]) 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators}}'''<!-- ] (]) 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

Latest revision as of 15:49, 11 January 2025

Notices of interest to administrators
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 3 2 5
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 7 7 14
    RfD 0 0 31 14 45
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
      Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, , is way too close paraphrasing of the source. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      See . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
      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 to make constructive content would indicate that the 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)
      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 on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727  18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Support. This appears to be a good-faith attempt at a return, and looking through the commentary here I don't see evidence to suggest continuing the ban and block are preventative. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose basically per JoelleJay, particularly the evidence that their MASSCREATE/socking/evading behaviour was carrying on as recently as spring 2024. If/When they return, it should be with the requirement that all their articles have to go through AFC and that they won't get WP:AUTOPATROLLED without a substantive discussion (i.e., no automatic conferring of autopatrolled - they have to request it and disclose why this restriction is in place when doing so). FOARP (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • It does look like a good-faith desire to return and work on Misplaced Pages. And I would just want to add that Misplaced Pages needs such a fruitful article creator. Especially since WP:NSPORT was severely trimmed several years ago, and probably thousands of sportspeople articles have since been deleted.
      Support. (I am not an admin, so I am not sure I can vote. I can see some non-admins voting, but I'm still not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Conditional support unblock (non-admin vote- if I'm not allowed to vote then please just unbold this vote): add editing restriction for them to use WP:AFC for article creation, and this restriction can be reviewed in 6-12 months if their article creation has been good. Their article mass creation required one of the largest cleanup jobs I have seen on here, and we certainly wouldn't want the same mass-created quasi-notable articles created again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft

    I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.

    It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.

    The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.

    I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.

    Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?

    Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?

    Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace ...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have blocked that IP. I note that it is possible that some of the other IPs could be the same users and so will block other IPs and/or apply semi-protection if this continues (or encourage others to do the same if I am away from my computer). Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF? Using draftspace to incubate articles on subjects that are not yet notable but almost certainly will be—unreleased films, upcoming elections, sports events, the next in an "X by year" series, and so on—is a common practice and has been as long as I can remember. As such it's listed at WP:DRAFTREASON. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think it makes sense to archive all threads in Talk:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse. They are all either forumy or else asking when the page can be moved to article space, which is no longer relevant since it is in article space. Yaris678 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I've updated the archive bot on that talk age to act on 1 month old threads. Should get rid of half of the ones on there when it runs next and the rest will follow soon enough. I've always thought 6 months was way too long of a default archive policy. Silverseren 20:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, I've always felt 90 days is sufficient for default archival purposes. If no one has contributed to a discussion in three months, it's a dead discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    43.249.196.179 (again)

    See their previous thread here, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    User:MrSchimpf seems to be unaware of many of the WP polices and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've been here nineteen years so obviously I do and I apologize if as mentioned I'm more aggressive about userspace being in control of the user themselves. That said I'm no longer engaging with you or any of your edits as you're now refusing to drop the stick and trying to troll some kind of response out of me (and doing the same for Liz, who has the patience of a saint), which you won't get. Understand our guidelines or get blocked. If anyone uninvolved would like to close this, please do so. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Length of time on WP is not a measure of how familiar an editor is with policy and guidelines. Your previous comments show that you are unfamiliar with some of them, but to be fair, it is impossible to know all of them. There are a lot of editors that do not know a lot of the policies and guidelines. THere are content disputes and corrections and reverts happening all the time because of inexperienced editors.
    I am not trolling. I just want WP to be much better than it currently is. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Adressing that final point, I have made a proposal about Category:Wikipedians to either remove the container banner tag or give special sanction to empty user pages from that main category. Tule-hog (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Category:Wikipedians is at a level of the hierarchy that there should be nothing in it, which is why it is a container category. The contents of it have been added by editors who do not understand how WP works and do not realise that it is a container category. You proposal is not needed. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    User namespace is not "sacred". And if there is an unwrittten rule then it is not a rule that needed to be adhered to. Also WP:BOLD. To be a good editor it is important to be familiar with policis and guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not a "gravedance". I was pointing out to you that other editors dont agree with you edits. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

    Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    I haven't looked into this editor's edits but we don't indefinitely block IP editors as the IP account can easily be assigned to a different user. But they can receive longtime blocks on the order of months or years. Liz 04:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are looking at two different IP addresses. Getting things right is important. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
    Honestly, whether that was a Joe Job or not, your behavior is indistinguishable from trolling & deserves a block. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Incivility at Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243

    @Dreameditsbrooklyn and to a lesser extent @Aviationwikiflight have been bickering in the talk page for a while now, and the reply chains are so long that they go off my phone's screen. DEB in particular has been noticeably passive aggressive in their comments, such as these diffs at me, this diff at AWF, and this diff at User:Awdqmb. Is this actionable? guninvalid (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    This looks to me like it's covered by WP:ARBEE. Animal lover |666| 02:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have yet to dig through the very length discussions, but on the surface I can say that I'm glad to see it not turning into much of an edit war in the article itself, and remaining mostly on the talk page. Infact the only person who breached 2R's was someone you didn't mention, and interestingly was never warned, but I placed a soft warning on their talk page. As far as the specific diffs provided, I don't see anything in there which is all that problematic, unless you're deeply intrenched in the issue. I would proffer is that if someone says, in it's entirety I am stating a fact. and you take offence to that, then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days. TiggerJay (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    "...then you might need to back away from the discussion for a few days". You're probably right about that. guninvalid (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    This seems entirely unnecessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate on which aspect of this you are referring to that you believe is unnecessary? TiggerJay (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    By this, I mean bringing the issue to ANI. If I owe anyone an apology, I stand ready to give it, but @Guninvalid hasn't really been involved in the discussion until very recently and has already escalated it here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter how much someone has been involved in a discussion. If there's misconduct that's not clearly going to get resolved on its own (which I'm not confident saying either way here), then it's a public service, even a responsibility, for an editor to report it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Dreameditsbrooklyn you can see my initial assessment of the situation above. However, I will say uninvolved editors are welcome to bring valid concerns to ANI. It is often far more helpful when someone outside of the situation brings it up here as it ends up being far more neutral. I also would suggest that you might also be too involved right now and need to back away for a few days. The biggest reason is that I believe you read right past Animal lover's and my response which basically didn't find you doing anything wrong. I suggest that a cooling off period might be good for you as well. Not because you're currently doing anything wrong (because that conversation would look quite different), but rather that you're likely too invested in this topic right now to see rationally and objectively. TiggerJay (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It was not my intent to ignore those assessments, and I understand what you've said as far as uninvolved editors raising such issues (real or perceived). Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, as a note, this isn't ANI... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I don't know why such a simple infobox change discussion will resulted in endless arguments. And it happened in mutiple pages, like this Voepass crash case, this Swiftair crash case, and now this Azerbaijan Airlines crash case there. And I'm afraid there would be other arguements in previous pages.
    But to be honest, I think I also have some responsibilities on this endless situation: I have known what to do to deal with such major changes, but I didn't really take any action. Awdqmb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The whole "Accident vs Crash" thing has been going on for a while now. It pretty much goes nowhere every time. DEB gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" should be avoided, AWF gives a whole bunch of reasons why "accident" is perfectly fine, and it all repeats with every new WP:AIRCRASH article. I just recommended on DEB's talk page that they try to seek a wider consensus to break this endless cycle, because I for one am tired of seeing the same arguments over and over again with no progress. - ZLEA T\ 08:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact you can check the talkpage I provided, you will find such arguments have happened on mutiple pages. Awdqmb (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since the regular editors in this topic area have proven that they are unable to resolve this utterly trivial terminology dispute among themselves, perhaps the best solution might be to topic ban every consistent advocate of "accident" and to topic ban every consistent advocate of "crash" from all articles about airplane mishaps, and let entirely uninvolved editors make a reasonable decision. Because endless bickering among entrenched advocates is disruptive. Topic bans could then be lifted on editors who explicitly agree to stop beating a dead horse and drop the terminology issue forever. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's less "unable to resolve" and more "Dreameditsbrooklyn argues that using 'accident' is original research because the sources use 'crash'" and I wish I was joking. Your modest proposal probably would get some kind of result though! - The Bushranger One ping only 08:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Infact I have already suggested to delete this controversial value on the talkpage of the template, since it have not much actural use to show, and mostly have the same contents with the "Summary" value. And ironically, it has showed the available value on the doc page, but the example they showed on simply violate it! But since then nobody really talk about it yet. Awdqmb (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    As someone who has consistently been on the side "accident is fine" of this argument (there really isn't an "accident/crash" binary here, just whether "accident" is original research), I think that's a bit extreme. I laid out a plan to seek wider consensus on DEB's talk page, which should hopefully help resolve the issue once and for all without the need for more drastic measures. - ZLEA T\ 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Respectfully, the descriptions aren't trivial. A "crash" describes what happened. An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability. An "incident" implies some sort of interaction or series of events. I have no specific dog in this fight and I don't believe I've voiced any significant opinion on the matter here or elsewhere, but such a description is not trivial when we are trying to be neutral in our descriptions. In this particular case, it very much appears that the act was deliberate and the airliner was acceptable collateral damage (in their opinion). At a minimum, it's disputed. As such, "accident" isn't appropriate as it is at least alleged to be a deliberate act or negligence. "Incident" or "crash" would be more neutral. If we say "accident" it implies no one should be blamed and fails WP:Neutral. Buffs (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    If only it were that simple (the context of aviation has been explicitly excluded from at least one discussion on the matter). We could go over whether "accident" actually implies no culpability in the context of aviation all day, but this is not the place to do it. As I stated numerous times, we need to formally establish a project-wide consensus about this, and WT:AATF is a good place to start. As for this discussion, I think it can be closed as the issue in question is very minor. - ZLEA T\ 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    WP:MOS says: If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence.
    WP:AT, which follows MOS says: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources.
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because some editors disagree? I am honestly asking. I don't see a policy which overrules MOS here. Also, I'll hold off on any new discussions on this until things have concluded here and at the article talk page, where the same editor who started this discussion opened an RfC on the topic. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will not continue this off-topic discussion here. If the same perceived problem is happening across multiple WT:AATF articles, then the discussion needs to be moved there to finally end the cycle and come to a consensus. - ZLEA T\ 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure WP:AATF is the correct venue to continue the discussion for a number of reasons, which I will spare going into here. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The very broad majority of RS call this a crash. Why, in this case, doesn't this apply? Because simple issues of phraseology don't need to "follow the sources", and insisting that they do is WP:WIKILAWYERING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Others have rejected this as the venue to hold this debate, and I will too. I suggest you follow your own advice and drop the stick, at least for now. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    An "accident" implies someone made a mistake with no real culpability No, it does not. The International Civil Aviation Organization, which is somewhat of an authority on the matter, defines an 'aircraft accident' as Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ..., in which: a) a person is fatally or seriously injured b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible. Notice what isn't there - anything about mistakes or culapbility. @Buffs: "Accident" is the official internationally recognized term for this sort of occurance, and is entirely neutral in use. Note that "incident" has a very specific term in aviation which is "an occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft that affects or could affect the safety of operation." @Dreameditsbrooklyn: I'd suggest you drop the stick and stop pushing this personal intrepretation. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why do you think this jargon use should take precedence over the common meaning of the word? The word "accident" can be used in (at least) two senses, one of which involves a lack of intention -- the fact that the ICAO (who?) says that they use the word "accident" in only one of these senses isn't somehow magically binding on everyone else who uses the word in the context of aviation. Given the choice between a word with two ambiguous senses, one of which inappropriate, and a word that has only one relevant sense, it's obvious that the latter word will be clearer, isn't it? 50.224.79.68 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    International Civil Aviation Organization. The people whose job it is to establish these things for aviation. It's not the use of one word for the other that I have a problem with. It's the argument that, somehow, using "accident" constitutes original research when in fact it is the correct terminology - and in fact some of the suggested alternatives are explicitly incorrect terminology - is the problem. And no, its not "magically binding", but common useage in the context of aviation is to refer to any crash as an "aviation accident", just like how if somebody deliberately rear-ends you in road rage it's still a "car accident" - it isn't WP:JARGON. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Do you think there was a car accident in New Orleans a few days ago? When you appeal to an organization like ICAO for what the meaning of a common word is, you are by definition using jargon. 2600:1700:47F8:800F:0:0:0:1BF7 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    When you appeal to an expert for the meaning of a word in the context of what it's being used in, that's common sense. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    It’s the very definition of the word jargon! No wonder people are finding you impossible to deal with. 108.169.132.163 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Watch it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    What is "an occurrence, other than an accident..." if "accident" includes "incidents"? Definition you're claiming here doesn't make a lot of sense. Buffs (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Accident =/= incident, which I believed was clear. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Incident includes accidents AND intentional acts. Buffs (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Not according to the ICAO definition, but this probably is something best not continued here I reckon. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not bring this up to WP:AN to litigate whether to use "crash" or "accident". If you would like to litigate that, I have started a RfC on the Talk page. I brought this here to ask the admins to discuss whether DEB's and AWF's behavior is worth pursuing administrator action. guninvalid (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Since you think this is an "utterly trivial terminology dispute" should I tag you in the RFC at WP:RS when I make it, or not? I don't wish to bother you if it's not important to you. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I know this discussion is about conduct, not about the disagreement which prompted it, but I'll note that the other user named here and who has not responded has since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries and has also since been accused of violating 3RR on the very entry which prompted this discussion. I've agreed to confine any further conversations to the talk page until a consensus is reached, wherever that may be. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    On the very entry for a completely different reason regarding the use of the Aviation Safety Network but I concede that whilst I was within the limits of 3RR, it probably shouldn't have gotten to that point in the first place. ... since changed several instances of the word 'crash' to accident on other entries – The only changes made were either related to a change within the infobox to stay consistent with Template:Infobox aircraft occurrence as the occurrence type on the aforementioned article stated Airliner crash, or related to changes regarding short descriptions since they were changed to be phrased in a way that is not usually done. It's not like I removed every single mention of the word crash and replaced it with accident. But back to the main topic, I'm willing to drop the issue as long as it's not an problem to use accident in articles relating to aviation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    Can we close this? The current discussion has next to nothing to do with the original issue and is best continued somewhere else. - ZLEA T\ 19:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Agreed. An admin got involved and simply continued off-topic discussion. guninvalid (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Insults, personal attacks and reverts of academic material

    This appears to be done. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    After reverting multiple edits that included references to peer-reviewed papers in academic journals, @FMSky posted the following on the Naomi Seibt talk page: "Put your trash analyses in the appropriate section(s) and stop flooding the lead with citations.". 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Yes, why haven't you done that? --FMSky (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Article in question is a contentious topic x3. The initial reverts of the IP's edits were for WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, since the IP included all the material in question in the lead with no mention in the body of the article. Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? Maybe. However, the IP's actions lean into the WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE category, and that may call for either direct sanctions against the anonymous editor or protection/sanctions on the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Does FMSky need trouted for using the term "trash analyses"? How else would you describe the IPs additon of "In May 2020, she reiterated her dismissal of investigative evidence by endorsing" --FMSky (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    You deleted all academic sources that claim that she is far-right, including other sources that have nothing to do with WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Which also indicates that you were more focused on reverting information you don't agree with, without first discussing it in the talk page. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Edit: also doubled down. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Put your new content into the body of the article instead of the lead. The lead is a summary of the body --FMSky (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Done. Now it’s a summary. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    User continues to stuff the lead with info not found anywhere else 1. A block or article lock would be appreciated --FMSky (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    I will proceed with covering the whole lead in the rest of the page. Give me an hour or two. 80.149.170.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Start with the body. Do the lede last. And work at article talk to make sure you have consensus before making major changes, especially to the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    The IP has come up with a more than sufficient number of reliable sources to back up the far right assertions (etc). However, the lead is not the place to stuff them: they should be in the body, and the lead should reflect that content. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Not only is there a pattern of IP editors inserting large chunks of information to the intro about her right-wing ties, but I also see this edit from 21 December that seemed to be at the start of the pattern, and that's from now-blocked user FederalElection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At the least, that's a mitigating factor to excuse FMSky's heavy-handed reaction to these latest edits. At the most, it's grounds to revert the addition until a (new, civil, content-related) discussion at the talk page generates consensus to include it and/or protect the page—and that protection might need logged as CTOP enforcement. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      You are consistently reverting edits that can be fully backed by reliable peer reviewed articles. You are refusing to acknowledge the scholarly literature. If any of you wanted to politely contribute to the article, you would not remove such sources. It’s not just the “chunk of information”, as you like to refer to it, but the constant removal of content you personally don’t agree with. Asking for the article to be locked is an effort to block others to edit, when the information provided is reliable. The bias extends to your plea to excuse FMSky’s insults. 62.74.35.238 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      IP - from what FMSky is saying above it looks like the issue is that you're attempting to put material in the lede which is not elaborated upon within the body of the article. This is a manual of style issue. Maybe consider working at article talk to find an appropriate place within the article for your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      Tread lightly, IP. Trying to link policy-based edits to personal bias is wading back into WP:ACCUSATIONOFMALICE. You will need to present strong evidence to back such accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'll add that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP objections". Even if the information was in the body, wp:undue concerns arise with pretty much anything added to the lead. So if an editor feels material doesn't belong in the lead of a BLP, it's entirely reasonable to ask for there to be consensus before it's added back. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    I think everything's been said that needs to be said here. As long as 62.74.35.238 now complies with the request to add the content to the body of the article before adding any summary to the lead, all users engage on the talk page, I don't think any admin action is necessary. WaggersTALK 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Topic ban appeal

    Hello, I have a topic ban that is approaching one year old on "undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America)". I would like an opportunity to contribute to these topics again. I have been fairly inactive since then but I have edited a few articles without issue. Thank you. DesertInfo (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'll kick off by asking the standard two questions: (1) please explain in your own words why you were topic banned; (2) do you have anything to say to convince everyone those same issues won't occur again? WaggersTALK 14:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    I was topic banned for not assuming good faith and making an allegation that someone was using a sockpuppet when I was unable to provide substantial evidence. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months but I stepped away for almost a year. I am ready to discuss these topics respectfully and understand the importance of patience and communication. ANI should be a last resort. DesertInfo (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you provide a link to the discussion where this topic ban was imposed? Thank you. Liz 04:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Found it. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1097#Desertambition's hostile edit history. Tarlby 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. That is helpful to have. Liz 07:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    • I support lifting the ban. DI's talk page makes for interesting reading, it shows quite a remarkable change in attitude over a period of a few years, and I believe that's genuine. WaggersTALK 08:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban I think being warned for making edits that violating a topic ban, then being almost completely inactive for six months, and then coming back and asking for it to be lifted and that passing sets a horrible example. * Pppery * it has begun... 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      It seemed like a good idea to step away from the site for a time. I was receptive to the warning, even though it was not from an admin, and stopped editing in that area entirely. These are the edits in question: I just forgot that I had to appeal the topic ban here first and haven't gotten around to it until now. It should be noted that the first edit merely restored a previous RFC that had been ignored and the last two were minor changes to articles that have since been restored.
      I have never made a different account or tried to dishonestly avoid the topic ban and I never will. All I ask is that you WP:AGF and give me a chance to show that I can contribute collaboratively and have matured. DesertInfo (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Only 106 edits since unblocking (including the unblocking), of which includes apparently no edits to article talkpages, which is where a lot of the issues emerged. There's not much to really evaluate change. CMD (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have largely avoided getting involved in article talk pages in order to avoid violating the topic ban. If I were to get involved in these topics to demonstrate change, it would be in violation of the topic ban. Seems like a catch-22. DesertInfo (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      There are literally millions of articles and talk pages not covered by your topic ban. You are expected to demonstrate change there. Why on earth do you think this makes it a catch-22 situation?!? --Yamla (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have made plenty of edits to articles like Caribbean Basin, List of current detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Venezuelan Caribbean, and List of archipelagos in the meantime without issue, there was no need to discuss it on the talk page. I have tried to make clear edit summaries and contribute to the encyclopedia. DesertInfo (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose lifting the topic ban. As per Chipmunkdavis, there have been very few edits since the unblock in February 2024. Although DesertInfo says "I have made plenty of edits", I just don't see enough here to justify lifting the topic ban. I'll also note that at least some of these edits came close to violating the topic ban (see User_talk:DesertInfo#Topic_ban for example). --Yamla (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose at this time I appreciate that you walked away rather than risk violating the ban. that shows some recognition of the issue and willingness to try and do something about it. However, what we would want to see would be a decent track record of editing over a sustained period without any hint of violating the ban, and you are just not there yet. Beeblebrox 23:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      I have edited multiple articles without issue. I don't understand why I would edit articles I'm not interested in/knowledgeable about. I don't want to add useless info or talk page comments for the sake of adding it. I have tried to contribute to articles I know something about. The topic ban is very broad and could reasonably be argued to cover most history/politics subjects.
      I made a genuine mistake half a year ago that was not egregious and did not violate the topic ban, only coming close. When reminded of the topic ban, I stopped immediately. The topic ban was appealable after 3 months. I was told to step away from editing entirely for a long period of time and I did:
      This ban has been in place been in place since 2022, over 3 years. A lot has changed and I have matured greatly. DesertInfo (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
      The topic ban is not so broad as to cut off most of en.wiki. Aside from the move and deletion restrictions, which are technical and do not restrict editing from any particular page, the topic ban is just "racial issues broadly construed". Do you really feel that this covers every article you are either interested in or knowledgeable about? Do you really feel you can't participate in talkpages without infringing on this? CMD (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'd say "racial issues broadly construed" is actually pretty broad given how much of history/geography is touched by it. I'd also say they do appear to have made an effort to improve, though I'd still like to see more. FOARP (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I want to see some real world effort working collaboratively somewhere else on wp, not just a six month gap waiting it, off wikipedia. There is no evidence here that there has been a change. scope_creep 08:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Request to Fix Redirect Title: Camden stewart

    Looks like this is done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hi, I need help correcting the capitalisation of the redirect "Camden stewart" to "Camden Stewart" as the surname is improperly lowercase. I cannot make the change myself because redirects require admin intervention for title corrections. Could an admin please assist? Thank you! GD234 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    How many redirects are you making? I see a lot of activity today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for your response! I’m just setting up a few redirects to make it easier for people to find Camdenmusique's article, like Camden Stewart or Camden Music. Let me know if anything needs adjusting, appreciate your help!" GD234 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    @GD234: I have moved the article to draftspace at Draft:Camdenmusique. If you have a conflict of interest with Camden Bonsu-Stewart (which I suspect that you may since you are interested in ensuring that the article is indexed on Google and you uploaded his professional headshot), you must declare it following these instructions. You should also not republish the article until it has been reviewed by an experienced editor at articles for creation. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback! GD234 (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Andra Febrian report

    "Andra Febrian" is disrupting many edits, I have seen many deleted edits by this user, and I would like to report the user for causing many edit wars. The edits unreasonably reverted by this user is very disruptive to me, as I only intend for useful contributions. The user has: - caused many edit wars
    - deleted citations along with deleting correct claims
    - not been cooperative (wikipedia's Editing policy) on many pages that good-intended edits have occurred on
    - not explained deletions of citations in a way that other users have been made upset.
    I request that the user is warned. HiLux duck — Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

    First: the notice at the top of the page clearly says to place new sections at the bottom of the page, which I have now done for you. Second: you need to provide diffs for the edits you are complaining about. Third, you were supposed to notify Andra Febrian per the instructions at the top of the page. Another user has done so for you. - Donald Albury 00:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @HiLux duck: please sign your comments using ~~~~, which will add a timestamp. Additionally, I reverted your edits to Peugeot 3008 and to Exeed because you are changing information in articles without citing reliable sources. You must cite sources when you add or change information in articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    HiLux duck just filed a new complaint at ANEW and made the exact same mistakes as they did here. I advised them to stop posting complaints on noticeboards until they can follow the instructions. Liz 07:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    FWIW, I have a feeling that HiLux Duck is a sockpuppet of MrDavr, but I am holding back until they give themselves enough rope to hang. Same obsession with defining overall lengths for various car classifications and edit warring at length over them.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm always impressed when editors can recall editing habits of editors that were blocked years ago. I guess I lack the longterm memory to keep track of sockpuppet habits. Liz 04:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Liz: MrDavr actually got under my skin at one point; otherwise I probably wouldn't have noticed. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Looking into this  Looks like a duck to me (a HiLux WP:Duck?) because yeah, this is exactly the same editing pattern. Same username pattern as a number of MrDavr socks too (car names/variations thereof - Toyota Hilux). - The Bushranger One ping only 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @The Bushranger - Quack quack? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Most likely yes, I knew that the his editing patterns matched an old blocked user but didn't remember the name. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's also interesting to note that HiLux duck's user page claims they've been on Misplaced Pages since 2019, and having compared edits more extensively I've seen enough and gone ahead and blocked per WP:DUCK. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Mr.Choppers warning request

    This was (again) posted at the top instead of the bottom; it seems like it is not really a separate issue. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    User:Mr.Choppers has not followed the WP:Civility rules because:
    - calling me a "nuisance" because of own bias supporting others in edit wars that have nothing to do with the user. (WP:Civility) (WP:Civility (second violation this user has performed))
    - responded fairly aggressively to another user (me) without me being aggressive back or starting this edit war
    - note that he also called me a "sockpuppet of a banned user" without reliable clarification, also biased on that
    - also note the user had not informed me and used aggression to support own claims.

    I would like to inform that this user has unnecessarily used aggression and claimed things not there. Kind regards, HiLux duck (talk) 2:29, 6 January 2025 (GMT+12)

    Missed this because it was at the top. Very unlikely to have merit and is moot now, given the block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Cannot draftify page

    Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I tried to draftify Wuliangbao_Pagoda but a draft exists with the same name (and same content before I blanked it). Could an admin delete the draft so I can draftify the article? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done @TheTechie: Draft:Wuliangbao Pagoda has been deleted. — xaosflux 01:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Remove PCR flag

    Flag run down. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Can an admin remove my Pending changes reviewer flag as I have not used it recently. Thanks ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "The Testifier" report

    Moved to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § "The Testifier" report – voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    Problem with creating user talk page

    CU blocked as sock by Spicy. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hello, I'd like to get some help to create the talk page of user BFDIisNOTnotable (talk · contribs) to warn them against edit warring with {{subst:uw-ewsoft}} or a similar notice. Trying to create the page gives a notice that "bfdi" is in the title blacklist. I wonder how the user was allowed to create the account today, given that from what I can see, the blacklist should also affect usernames...? I obviously can't notify the user of this AN post on their talk page. ObserveOwl (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    I have created the talk page. No idea why 'BFDI' is on the blacklist, and if so, why a user name by that was allowed - that's something for cleverer heads than mine... GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it stands for "Battle for Dream Island". See WP:BFDI. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, I wondered if it was linked to Bundesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit. GiantSnowman 14:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    As to the technical reason that the username could be created, the reason is that accounts are not actually created on this wiki. They are created globally. As a result, us blacklisting anything can't prevent account creation. Animal lover |666| 18:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    This particular account was definitely created on this wiki. Graham87 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

    Administrator changes

    added Sennecaster
    readded
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned
    removed Ferret

    Oversight changes

    added
    readded Worm That Turned

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    user:Uwappa: refusal to engage with WP:BRD process, unfounded allegation of WP:NPA violation, unfounded vandalism allegation

    I have indefinitely blocked Uwappa per WP:NLT. Whilst the legal threat pointed out by multiple editors may be very vague, it certainly is designed to have a chilling effect, and Uwappa has confirmed this with this addition to the section. Quite apart from that, we have persistent edit-warring, meritless claims of vandalism against others, and there is a limit to which an editor who thinks all of this is a big joke can be allowed to waste everybody else's time. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they so desire. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    repost from archive:

    The content disagreement behind this report is trivial in the overall scope of Misplaced Pages (although the articles affected are subject to WP:MEDRS), but the editor behaviour is not. My reason to bring this case to ANI is that user:Uwappa rejects some basic principles of the project: WP:BRD means that a bold edit may be reverted to the status quo ante and goes on to say don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement. Despite having been reminded about BRD after their first immediate counter-revert, they responded to the reversion to the sqa with another counter-revert and, after another editor reinstated the sqa, counter-reverted again. At no stage did they attempt to engage in BRD discussion. Both I and the other editor attempted to engage with them at their talk page: Uwappa characterises my explanation as a personal attack. On another page, Uwappa reverted an edit where I suppressed the questioned material template, declaring it "vandalism" in the edit summary. I recognise the rubric at BRD that says BRD is optional, but complying with Misplaced Pages:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Misplaced Pages:Edit war is mandatory but Uwappa has done neither.

    I consider my escalating this to ANI to be a failure of negotiating skill on my part but, while Uwappa refuses to engage, I am left with no choice. Allowing a few days for logic to intervene has not been fruitful. With great reluctance, because Uwappa has made valuable contributions, I have to ask that they be blocked until they acknowledge and commit to respect the principles that underlie BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN.

    Diffs: (all timestamps UTC. NB that I am in England => UTC+00:00, Uwappa is in Australia => UTC+10:00 )

    ---

    As of 11:48 (UTC) on 30/12, the live version of the template is the one that has consensus support. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Well, Uwappa hasn't edited on the project in 12 hours so it's pretty sage to assume they haven't seen this complaint yet. I'd like to hear their response and whether or not they are willing to collaborate before passing any judgment. Very through presentation of the dispute, easy to follow, so thank you for that. Liz 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that is why I felt it important to make clear that our time zones are very widely spaced, which makes collaboration difficult in the best of circumstances. When they do see it, I would expect they will take some time offline to polish their response before posting it – and consequently it is likely to be as long again before I respond. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Reposted above from archive, see User_talk:Uwappa#c-JMF-20250105190300-Uwappa-20250105161700

    JMF suggested to add the following bit from my talk page:

    You escaped sanction because there were too many more egregious cases in the pipeline and it is a first offence. ANI does not adjudicate on content disputes, only on behaviour and compliance with fundamental principles. The evidence against you was really unarguable; I have seen quite a few cases and I know how they play out: if it had reached a conclusion, you would have been blocked until you acknowledged that you had gotten carried away in the heat of the moment, that you understand and accept WP:EPTALK, WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN, and that from now on you commit to respecting them. I strongly advise that you take the message anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Mate, sorry I was late for the escalation party. End of the year was a madhouse here, both in business and with social activities.
    I was very happy you did escalate and will be happy to reply now that I have spare time available for WP. My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations.
    Would you like me to repost your escalation? Uwappa (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I strongly advise that you read Misplaced Pages:No legal threats before you write another line. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    I am so sorry I was late to join this party. End of the year was a bit too hectic, did not leave much spare time for fun activities like WP.

    user:Liz What would you like me to do now? Uwappa (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    It was not clear on your talk page, and it's even less clear here since you did not repost your response to JMF's last line there. You do explicitly retract the apparent legal threat that was made? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I did not make a legal threat. Uwappa (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Uwappa: your reference to your "business legal team" could certainly be construed as a veiled one, at the very least. You are being asked to clarify by either confirming or retracting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    My business legal department is pretty exited about it, like a kid in a candy store, can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. is either a legal threat or indistinguishable from one. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    No it is not a legal threat. It is about "WP rules and regulations", not about law.
    • To who would this be a threat?
    • Which law?
    • In which country?
    Uwappa (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It certainly looks like a legal threat. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Uwappa. Why would a legal department be involved? — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Wow, I am glad you asked.
    • to have a bit of fun, take a break from the normal, pretty serious work. It will be like kids in a candy store.
    • It will be fun for me too. I can't wait to get going with this once the pandemonium calms down.
    • The accusation "user:Uwappa: refusal to engage" is utterly wrong.
    Uwappa (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not at all experienced in the legal world, but I don't think any professional legal team that you're paying money towards would ever be excited to save you from a website "like kids in a candy store". Tarlby 22:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why would a legal department be excited about you being reported on Misplaced Pages unless you're planning to use them in some way? Tarlby 17:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I suspect, from context, that Uwappa was trying to suggest they would have assistance of a professional team in interrogating rules and regulations. But "I have the spend to wikilawyer this more than you can" isn't really all that much better than an outright legal threat. Between that and this edit what surprises me is that they're not blocked yet frankly. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


    and just to throw some more fuel on the bushfire, you have just accused me twice more of vandalism.03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC), 08:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • JMF above said you were in Australia and I had no reason to disbelieve him. If you aren't, it's irrelevant really, I was just pointing out that you may not edit for a few hours. No-one here is required to answer your questions, but I will; the point was that you invoked something that could be a legal threat My business legal department is pretty exited about it ... can't wait to put its teeth in WP rules and regulations. You say that isn't a legal threat, well fine, but you haven't explained what it was. Meanwhile, you're still edit-warring on the template and claiming that other's edits are vandalism, which they clearly aren't, which is why you can no longer edit it. Have I missed anything? Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Again, that was either a legal threat or actions indistinguishable from a legal threat in an attempt to cause a chilling effect. When called on it you have continually Wikilawyered instead of straight-up saying "no, that was not a legal threat and I am not involving any legal actions in this". So to make it very clear: you need to clearly state that or be blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    And just to add to the excitement, Uwappa has just repeated their allegation of vandalism against me and reverted to their preferred version of the template for the sixth time.16:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (Their edit note adds 3rd time in 24 hours: are they boasting of a 3RR vio? Zefr undid their fourth attempt, I undid their fifth attempt, but possibly they misread the sequence.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Ha ha ha, this is beyond ridiculous.

      An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.

      — WP:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule
      .
    • Suggestion: Add the following calculator to WP:3RR:

    3 is less than three. is equal to three. is more than three.

    • From WP:EW; Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring. Which this quite obviously does, especially as you've reverted twice whilst this report was ongoing. Frankly, you're quite fortunate it was only a partial block. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    To admins, please WP:ABAN Uwappa from further work on the calculator template for the body roundness index and waist-to-height ratio, and from further editing and talk page input on those articles. Uwappa has done admirable extensive work, but the simple calculator is finished and sufficient as it is. Uwappa has created voluminous WP:TLDR/WP:WALLOFTEXT talk page discussions for articles with under 50 watchers and few talk page discussants; few editors would read through those long posts, and few are engaged.
    In recent edits on templates, Uwappa reverts changes to the basic template as "vandalism". No, what we're saying is "leave it alone, take a rest, and come back in a few years when more clinical research is completed." Zefr (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An inappropriate template being added to many pages

    A user is adding the "mortal sin" template to a large number of articles where it doesn't belong . I've reverted 3 of them that were added to the articles I have watchlisted. Could someone who knows how to do massive reverts take care of the others? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_6#Template:Mortal_sin_in_the_Catholic_Church. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've reverted the addition of the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    The template as been deleted per WP:G4. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    A look through this editor's talk page shows that there is a wider issue with their editing about religion. Regarding this specific issue they have done something quite similar before (see Template:Mortal Sins According To The Catholic Church) along with a number of articles they've written moved to draftspace and that have been nominated for deletion. Their contibution history also shows a significant portion of edits having been reverted. Before suggesting any action I'm keen to hear from Oct13 on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Btw, the last time Oct13 has ever edited a noticeboard was on June 6 2020. The last 2 times they edited a talk page were on February 17 2022 and April 15 2020. Tarlby 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    It also looks like the main thing they have done on their own talk pages in the last seven or eight years is to just repeatedly blank it. We may have a RADAR situation here. Beeblebrox 01:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    This editor's editing looks to consist largely of making inappropriate edits, "sourced" if at all to unreliable sources, and perhaps in hopes that if enough of that is done, a few will slip by. As we're unlikely to hear from them, I'd be in favor of indefinitely blocking them, at the very least until they meaningfully engage regarding the problems with their editing. Seraphimblade 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I second that. As we wait here, they continue to edit, and all have been reverted. Perhaps an articlespace block until we get a satisfactory response?— rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've blocked them indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Liz invited them to reply here. Let’s keep this open for now and see if the user responds, now that regular editing of articles is blocked.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Ottawahitech, requesting an appeal on their talk page restriction

    User wants to use Misplaced Pages as a social network. Misplaced Pages is not a social network. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hello, I find that Ottawahitech (talk · contribs) has opened an appeal about their talk page restriction.


    As I have told the blocking admin, whom I am not pinging at their request, I do not wish to appeal my block. Before I was blocked at the discretion of Beeblebrox/Just Step Sideways I made about 75,000 "edits" to the English Misplaced Pages, and have continued contributing to other Wikimedia projects since my Block in 2017. I enjoy my recent volunteer activity more than I did my activity here, and do not ask for a complete unblock. However, I would still like to be able to communicate with fellow wikipedia editors and request the removal of the restrictions that have been imposed on my user-talk.
    Notice to the admin handling this request: Just to let you know I am a very infrequent visitor to the English Misplaced Pages, and as such there is no urgency in acting on this request. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

    I'd copy them here. Though in my opinion, the restriction just came along commonly as the indef block. Hoping someone may like to review that. -Lemonaka 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    This might be better at WP:AN. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Moved per request-Lemonaka 15:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    What was Ottawahitech blocked for to begin with? My understanding is something to do with bad page creation attempts and / or edit warring at article talk. Is this correct? Has Ottawahitech demonstrated that they understand what they did was wrong? Because they appear to have been indeffed in 2017 and indefinite doesn't mean forever. If they've shown recognition of what led to their block and have committed not to repeat their mistakes then I'd be inclined to say this looks like a reasonable request. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Their previous block seemed a little bit like WP:CIR block, and I'm, auch, due to my interaction with them on another project, I'm inclining a not unblock. -Lemonaka 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Lemonaka: why did you post this here? I didn't see Ottawa make a request for this to go to AN. Additionally, blocked means blocked. We don't let blocked editors use their talk page to shoot the shit with other editors. If Ottawa wants to chat with old friends, they can email each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that we should decline this request. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not run a chat board. If Ottawahitech is interested in the social aspects of wikipedia, they should pursue other communication channels. Perhaps the Wikimedia Community Discord Server is what they're looking for. RoySmith (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Argh. I came here for an entirely different reason, but I am unsurprised to see the persistent IDHT behavior of this user continues on.
    I blocked them in 2017 for persistent failure to abide by basic content policies, mainly being very experienced but still regularly creating pages that qualified for speedy deletion. I believe there was a discussion somewhere that led to it but I seem to have failed to note it in the block log. What I do recall is that they did not participate in that discussion.
    Several months later another admin revoked talk pages access because they were using the page to chat, and to ask other users to proxy for them, while not addressing the block.
    Four years later they contacted me via another WMF site and I did them the courtesy of re-instating their talk page for purposes of appealing their block. They then indicated they didn't want to do that, they just wanted talk page access back.
    And that's still all they want. They don't want to rejoin this community as an editor. There's no point to even discussing this except to consider the possibility of re-revoking TP access to avoid further time wasting nonsense like this. Beeblebrox 21:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    FTR, here is the ANI discussion that led to the block of Ottawahitech. --bonadea contributions talk 21:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    RFU backlog doin' great

    I know I ruffled some feathers with the way I approached this last month, but I'm pleased to report that as of this writing there are less than twenty pending unblock requests, many of those being CU blocks. Not that long ago the daily average was closer to eighty. I certainly did not do this alone, in fact I was ill for a week there and did basically nothing. Quite a number of admins and others pitched in in various ways over the past few weeks to move things along.

    That's great, but we should not get complacent, as that was what led to the backlog being so bad before. Thanks to everyone who helped get it to where it is now. I would again encourage any and all admins to pitch in whatever they can to keep this manageable. Any substantive review of an unblock request helps. Thanks again to everyone who helped make this suck a little less. Beeblebrox 21:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Call for mentors

    There's a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Growth Team features/Mentor list about extending the mentorship module to all new accounts. Presently, all new accounts are assigned a mentor, but only half of them receive the module that allows them to send questions to that mentor directly from the newcomer homepage. We'd like to extend the module access to all new accounts, but we're a bit short of the "ideal" number of mentors to do so - we're looking to get about 30 more. Posting here because the experienced users who haunt this noticeboard are likely to make good mentors. Basically the only requirement is "not jerk, has clue", with a side of "you should be someone who logs in frequently enough that your mentees won't feel ignored". Most of the questions you get are very easy to resolve. Some are harder. Every so often you get something actually fun. -- asilvering (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    I signed up sometime last year, and I'd guesstimate that I've received questions from maybe 10% of the accounts I'm assigned to mentor. So far (knock on wood) it hasn't been onerous at all. (Hoping that will encourage more editors to give it a try.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just signed up. I had played with the idea before, but given there are well over a hundred mentors and I don't hear much about it, I assumed it wasn't terribly active or in need of more people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've noticed I'm getting fewer questions, which I assume is because more mentors have signed up over time but the number of new accounts receiving the module has remained constant (it's a rare mentee who comes back and asks multiple questions over time). So it's true in a way that it didn't really need more people. I expect that you'll notice a significant boost when it goes to 100% and then a gradual decline again. -- asilvering (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Time to add an option for three time the number of mentees assigned. Nobody (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Seconding this, I wouldn't be opposed to taking over more mentees if there is a need for it until we get more mentors. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed, though the max number of mentees per page might want to be increased to 50 from 25. JayCubby 00:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I signed up a week ago, and only got a single question asked of me. How many people are using the newcomer dashboard? There, I have found, aren't many users signing up and editing per day, per ListUsers, so I can't imagine there are very many people using the mentorship at all.
    I'd be curious to see what automatically assigning mentors would do to retention rates (maybe that's written somewhere). JayCubby 17:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've been "twice as many" assigned for quite awhile now (I think I was one of the first mentors when the program even launched) and I'd say it's not atypical to only get ten or so queries a month. You can look through my talk page archives if you want a more accurate number (also note that sometimes I revert mentee questions if they're obvious spam). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just counted and it looks like I've had 156 questions since February 2022. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections

     You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Kansascitt1225 ban appeal

    I am posting the following appeal on behalf of Kansascitt1225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who is considered banned by the community per WP:3X:

    (keeping it short for WP:TLDR) Hi Misplaced Pages community, it has been over 1 year since I edited on Misplaced Pages without evading my block or breaking community rules. I would like to be given another chance to edit. I realized that my blocking was due to my behavior of creating multiple accounts and using them on the same page and creating issues during a disagreement. I was younger then and am now able to communicate more effectively with others. I intend to respect community rules and not be disruptive to the community. I was upset years ago when I mentioned Kansas City’s urban decay and it was reverted as false and I improperly reacted in a disruptive way that violated the community rules. The mistake I made which caused the disruptive behavior was that I genuinely thought people were reverting my edits due to the racist past of this county and keeping out blacks and having a dislike for the county. I also thought suburbs always had more single family housing and less jobs than cities. In this part of the United States a suburb means something different than what it means in other parts of the world and is more of a political term for other municipalities which caught me off guard and wasn’t what I grew up thinking a suburb was. Some of these suburbs have lower single family housing rates and higher population density and this specific county has more jobs than the “major city” (referenced in previous unblock request if interested). This doesn’t excuse my behavior but shows why I was confused and I should have properly addressed it in the talk pages instead of edit warring or creating accounts. After my initial blocking, I made edits trying to improve the project thinking that would help my case when it actually does the opposite because I was bypassing my block which got me community banned to due the automatic 3 strikes rule. I have not since bypassed my block. I’m interested in car related things as well as cities and populations of the United States and want to improve these articles using good strong references. Thanks for reading. Kansascitt1225 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    References

    1. https://slate.com/business/2015/05/urban-density-nearly-half-of-america-s-biggest-cities-look-like-giant-suburbs.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

    voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

    Heritage Foundation

    There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Heritage Foundation intending to "identify and target" editors that may be of interest to those who watch this noticeboard, especially if you edit in the PIA topic area. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Deleted contributions request

    Done and dusted. Good work all. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I'm currently leading an investigation at the English Wikibooks into poorly attributed page importations from the 2000s (decade). One page I discovered was Thick Sand Motorcycling, which was allegedly imported from an enwiki page called How-to/Motorcycling, but this page does not appear to have ever existed. It looks like this page was deleted at VFD in 2004, but there is no deletion log entry, so I can't find the original page to re-import to Wikibooks. Its talk page provides a page history for this enwiki article, which includes an anonymous editor whose IP address is 62.200.132.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). If the privacy policy allows it, I would like to know the titles of the pages that this user edited in their three deleted contributions (I don't need the content, just the titles). JJPMaster (she/they) 05:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    @JJPMaster: The only deleted contributions from that IP are to the deleted article you linked above and garden variety vandalism of a redirect saying that "this is junk". If you're looking for poorly attributed page importations, this specific IP would be a dead end on that front. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Clovermoss: Nope, that's actually all I needed to know—I really just needed this information to verify the page title. Could this page be undeleted in my userspace so I can complete the proper import and merge? JJPMaster (she/they) 05:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @JJPMaster: Done at User:JJPMaster/How-to/Motorcycling. I've never done something like this before so let me know if I messed up. I removed for VfD nomination template in case that screwed with bots or whatever. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Clovermoss: The import and merge are  Done. Please delete the page now. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    @JJPMaster: I've deleted the page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    The reason you couldn't find it in the deletion log is because logs didn't exist in their current form until 23 December 2004. This page was deleted about a month before that. —Cryptic 06:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    WP:NOTHERE behavior (or 'very' slow learner) from User: Astronomical17

    Editor hasn't edited in a week, feel free to reopen should disruption continue if they return. Liz 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    User:Astronomical17's talk page has got some history. It would seem they have a habit of AfCing articles on rappers and sports teams, failing them, and then making them anyway, such as with Devstacks which is currently at WP:AfD and looks like it deserves a PROD. They've been repeatedly informed to include sources and citations but seem to fail to do so. But my WP:NOTHERE allegation comes from this diff at the AfD where they blanked the page, seemingly in an attempt to obstruct the AfD process. Does this behavior warrant administrator action beyond a stern talking-to? guninvalid (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Sure, a long talk page, but not a single non-templated notice as far as I can tell (though I might have missed one). I think a kind word would suffice, at least to start out with. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I generally concur, however, this user (a.k.a. User:Cyanxbl) doesn't seem to be interested in talking to anyone about his actions. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Left a warning and note on his user talk page. Hopefully he engages. If such behavior continues, a block may be necessary to get his attention and drive the collaborative process. While I support such a block, it should ONLY be used to stop such disruptive behavior if it continues. Once that ceases and he's willing to collaboratively edit, such a block should be lifted post haste! Buffs (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Confusion about two articles that may be covering the same person

    The pages are Chaudhry Sher Ali Khan and Chaudhary Sher Ali. Can an administrator please find the correct name and merge them, if they are the same person? 71.202.215.54 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    Are they the same person? The date of birth (for Chaudhary Sher Ali) is the same in the text (without a source here), but in the infobox (added by an IP without a source: diff) it's different... Honestly, I feel it would be easier to just give up on this one, it was created by a sock-puppeteer (albeit on their original account, though they edited it with multiple socks too, seemingly all reverted), it's quite possibly a waste of time.
    That said I didn't actually investigate what is salvageable about the content - just reverted the last 2 edits by an IP. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC) *edited: 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32, this seems like a valid inquiry, why would it be considered a "waste of time"? I don't know what you mean by "giving up on this one" when it's a matter of investigating whether we have a duplicate article here. Liz 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why you seem to be attempting to discourage people looking into this. Seems like something that would be both possible, and important, to do. Or at the very least, attempt. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I shouldn't be discouraging. I was thinking this might be a WP:TNT kind of situation (for the second linked article), due to the amount of socking and unsourced edits, and the article already existing if it's the same person, as opposed to merging them - but you are both right that it's always worth checking.
    I'll just cross out that part of the comment. – 2804:F1...96:BB60 (::/32) (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think this is an admin thing, it's a content issue; shouldn't it be discussed on one of the talk pages, possibly with a proposed merge, instead of here? WaggersTALK 08:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Non-EC editor editing ARBPIA, broadly construed.

    Sinai and Palestine campaign semi-protected until the 23rd. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    This is intended as a "heads-up", asking for admin eyes, and letting admins know what I have done. I noticed edits by OnuJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to 57th Infantry Regiment (Ottoman Empire) and Sinai and Palestine campaign, removing mentions of Palestine or changing Palestine to Israel. I have undone the edits. I have placed welcome/warning templates on their usertalk page, as advised when I asked recently on AN about a similar situation. The account in question was created on 4 December 2020, made two edits on that day, and then nothing until the three edits on the 7th January this year that caught my eye. I shall forthwith add {{subst:AN-notice}}~~~~ to their usertalk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

    I don't think this really needs admin attention. Your CTOP notice suffices. If they continue making those kinds of edits, you can go to AE or ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
    I might have to reread the ARBPIA restrictions because these two edits are about incidents around World War I. I'm not sure they are covered by ARBPIA restrictions which I tend to remember are about contemporary events. Liz 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think the concern is that while the articles aren't ARBPIA per se, the edits (changing Palestine to Israel ) are clearly ARBPIA-motivated, as it were. (Even leaving aside the historical inaccuracy in that Israel didn't exist at the time!) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would consider the edits to be within the realm of WP:ARBPIA broadly construed. TarnishedPath 03:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Those kinds of transparently false Palestine to Israel or Israel to Palestine edits should result in a block without warning and without any red tape in my view. They know what they are doing. People who edit in the topic area shouldn't have to waste their time on these obvious WP:NOTHERE accounts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess I didn't make my meaning all that clear. Editors should not post to AN every time they warn a brand new account about a CTOP. It's a waste of everyone's time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Voorts: It's not a brand new account, but presumably you didn't waste any of your time by actually reading my post. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    I misstated that this was a new account, but an account with five edits that hasn't edited since before you warned them isn't really something that needs an AN thread. I apologize for my tone. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Now an IP 2800:A4:C0F1:B700:D17E:5AEF:D26C:A9B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making similar edits, changing Palestine to Israel. DuncanHill (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hide this racist edit.

    WP:DENY - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Different project, nothing for en.wikipedia.org admins to do. OP was pointed in the right direction. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hide the racist edit summary. It says bad words and it is stereotyping Romani people.

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Uzalutno:Contribuții/178.115.130.246 200.80.186.184 (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    That's on the Romani Misplaced Pages, we only deal with the English one here. You'll need to raise that with the admins on that project. WaggersTALK 08:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please refer to m:SRM, if there are no active RMYWP admins available. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin prohibits to delete copyright links

    This has nothing to do with the English Misplaced Pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    In the following topic: MU Online Admin Egilus refuses to delete the following links that violate Copyright policies (links to pirated websites):

    Refers to "Community discussion", when the latest discussion about the page contents happened on 2008 and simple google is available to see which links are pirated and which are not. Nebraska Ivan (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    96.230.143.43

    Blocked, and WP:AIV is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    This user is a frequent vandal on the page Devils Tower. I am requesting a block. Drdr150 (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Blocked. In the future, please use WP:AIV. Jauerback/dude. 16:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ah, very sorry. Drdr150 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    StoneX Group Inc.

    I’m concerned about the page at StoneX Group Inc.

    There are disclosed COI paid edits but the main problem I’m highlighting here is that the subject company appears to see that they have ownership of the page to the extent of adding obviously inappropriate stuff, see my most recent edit to remove it. I’m not sure of the correct procedure and was wondering if an admin could possibly have a polite word with those editors? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Have you tried discussing this with the COI editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Permissions Removal

    Rights...left? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Hello, please remove my rollback and pending changes review permissions. Rollback is redundant because I have global rollback and I do not use the reviewer rights enough to warrant keeping them. Thank you! Ternera (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Thank you. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ftools is back!

    I am proud to announce that I have become the new maintainer of Fastily's ftools, which is live here. And yes, this includes the IP range calculator! JJPMaster (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

    👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
    Note: DreamRimmer is now also a maintainer. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    My congratulations/condolences. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


    Block appeal for User:Aman.kumar.goel

    UNBLOCK DENIED AKG has withdrawn the request. In any case, I see too many misgivings even on the "support" side to consider an unblock at this time. asilvering (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    I am bringing a somewhat unusual unblock request here for broader community input. Aman.kumar.goel has been blocked for more than a year for sockpuppetry (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel/Archive). As you can see in the unblock request at User talk:Aman.kumar.goel#Unblock request, they have agreed to a one-account restriction as an unblock condition, and there is no CU-confirmed evidence of recent sockpuppetry. However, Ivanvector, who made that check, is skeptical and has declined to support an unblock. A topic ban from WP:ARBPIA and WP:ARBIPA were floated as additional possible conditions, but no agreement was reached, and Aman.kumar.goel has requested that their unblock request be considered by the wider community. Their statement is as follows:

    I was blocked for sockpuppetry. There was no doubt throughout the discussion over that. I have agreed to a one-account restriction. However, during the unblock request, a topic ban on me was proposed from Israel-Palestine (WP:ARBPIA) and also from Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (WP:ARBIPA). Though no proper evidence was provided to substantiate such proposals.
    While the proposal to topic ban me from WP:ARBPIA does not make any sense because I haven't even edited that area, I would nevertheless reject the proposed topic ban from WP:ARBIPA with explanation because in this area I have been significantly active.
    My edits on WP:ARBIPA were clearly net-positive, and they fixed the long-term problems that were otherwise overlooked for a long time. You can find the deletion of a number of non-notable pro-Hindutva articles, creation of SPIs of future LTAs, and multiple DYKs. That said, the idea to topic ban me achieves nothing good. Black Kite himself said "The edits aren't the issue here, it's socking in the IPA area that is.". However, for the offense of sockpuppetry, I have already agreed to one-account restriction and spent over 1 year blocked.
    Once unblocked, I would like to improve drafts such as Draft:Aeroin Spacetech and Draft:Omspace Rocket and Exploration. Looking forward to positive feedback. Aman Kumar Goel 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    asilvering (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    • Support as requested. The request is sincere. Having edited a fair amount of articles where I discovered this editor's edits, I found his edits thoroughly productive and that is absolutely uncommon in this area. Nxcrypto Message 01:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Aman.kumar.goel's explanation for the relationship with Editorkamran is we knew each other in real life, and we used the same internet and the same system sometime, and also helped each other at times with Misplaced Pages editing, but Ivanvector says the CU data indicates someone who had been carefully using two or probably more accounts for quite some time and going to lengths to obscure the connection, but made a mistake just one time that exposed them. I don't know who's right, but this is a CU block, so if Aman.kumar.goel stands by his answer, I'd be uncomfortable unblocking unless another CU has a different interpretation of what happened. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      @Extraordinary Writ, response from AKG copied over:

      Hope you will check my statement above where I explained, "However, upon reading further following the block, I realised that what I did was a violation of WP:SOCK because the use of both these accounts was prohibited by the policy, especially WP:SHARE and WP:MEAT." That means the CU finding does not really challenge my admission because I don't deny using multiple accounts. The only thing I happened to clarify was that the two accounts belonged to two different persons before they were used by the same person, which is me. That's why, in my unblock request (for WP:AN), I have also cited the edits of Editorkamran account as part of my edits into this area. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

      voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      All I know about this case is what I can glean by reading the private case notes, which do indeed support what Ivanvector has said. But given that AKG has admitted (on their talk page) to using the Editorkamran account, that's all kind of moot. I'd still like to hear Ivan's latest opinion on this, and I've also pinged off-wiki another CU who is familiar with this case, but my personal feeling is that we should draw a line in the sand and accept the unblock request with the single account restriction, no ARBPIA/IPA/API/TLA restriction, and an understanding that AKG's account at the bank of AGF is empty. RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Oh, the other thing I wanted to mention is that on unblock requests, we're often left wondering what the user plans to work on if unblocked. In this case, they've specified two extant drafts they want to complete, both of which look like they have the potential to be useful articles. So that's a plus. RoySmith (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Am I the only one to feel that their earlier statements, even if they did mention WP:SHARE would not reasonably be understood to an admission that they did eventually user the Editorkamran account? Especially with all that comment about "we used the same internet and the same system sometime" etc? To my read the earlier statement gives the impression that they each account was only ever used by one person even if they did communicate and coordinate their editing at times. It's only most recently that I feel they've finally made it clear they it wasn't simply a matter of communication and coordination but rather that did use the other account directly. This also leads to the obvious question. How could any editor actually think it's okay for them to use some other editor's account just because it primarily belongs to another editor? Whether you consider it WP:SOCKing or whatever, you should not need any real experience to know it's unacceptable and definitely any editor with AKG's experience should know that. Note that I'm not suggesting that an editor who did what AKG did can never be unblocked, definitely they can be. But IMO there are good reasons to call into question whether the editor is ready for an unblock when they seem to have been so dishonest in their unblock request. In other words, if said something like 'yes I did X, I knew it was wrong and should not have done it, I promise not to do it again' rather than what they actually said, I'd be much more inclined to consider an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      For what it's worth: I'm the other CU mentioned by Roy. I had run the initial checks and written some contemporaneous notes. I agree with Ivanvector's assessment at the talk page appeal; there was a concerted, long-term effort to obfuscate the connection between these accounts, which doesn't really fit with the assertion that they only realised they were doing something wrong after the fact. Whether a second individual also had access to either account at times can't really be retroactively assessed with any certainty, but it also seems immaterial to the finding of socking. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with 1 account restriction. A prolific editor with no recurring issues. Understands where he was wrong. Capitals00 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support: I have edited in South Asian-related topics and have run across some edits made by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Of these, I have seen several constructive edits made by him that have overall improved Misplaced Pages. Additionally, being blocked for one year is enough of a penance, which I'm sure has given him time to reflect. In view of this, I support his request in good faith. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support with one account restriction and no topic restriction. We need competent editors working in the India topic area, as long as they follow policies and guidelines. The editor should be aware that Misplaced Pages:One last chance applies here. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I warned AKG in October 2021 for tag-team editing with Srijanx22, after many instances of one showing up to a content dispute the other was in to back them up. AKG didn't understand then what the issue was. He didn't understand it when he was blocked for socking with Editorkamran. He doesn't seem to understand it now. The semantics of sockpuppetry vs. "just" meatpuppetry are uncompelling. We indeed need more competent editors in the India topic area. We are not going to get closer to that by letting in someone who has shown willingness to serially manipulate interactions in that topic area, who managed to evade detection for years, who continued doing so after a first warning, and whose explanation is, apparently, unpersuasive to CUs who have reviewed the evidence. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It has been sufficiently confirmed throughout these years that the false allegation of tag teaming was indeed false. Do you see me in any of the events that have been mentioned so far in this unblock request? You don't. It is disappointing to see you bringing up your misleading observation you made when you weren't even an admin. You did not even ping me. Oh, and don't ask me how I got here because I watch this noticeboard and have edited it before.Srijanx22 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I'm glad that you heeded my warning and stopped tag-teaming with AKG. AKG, however, continued to manipulate consensus in the topic area, which is what he got indeffed for. I didn't ping you because I'm not making any comment on your fitness as an editor; I just wanted to be clear that that 2021 report was separate from the Editorkamran case. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      To quote what I had said then, "I am comfortable with ignoring your 'warning' since it lacks policy backing." I said that because no tag teaming on my part ever happened in the first place and the time has proven me correct. I would reiterate that you are supposed to ping the editor whose behavior is being discussed. In this case, you had to. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Actually, the SPI makes it clear that there were multiple examples of you reverting to the same version as AKG in rapid succession, whether you were co-ordinating off-wiki with AKG or not. As well as those, I could add 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes on 1st December 2020 and 21st February 2021 and Violence against Christians in India on 19 April 2020. So please give it a rest with the denials and instead ensure that it doesn't happen in the future if AKG is unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That's totally superficial. I have also edited both of these popular articles and so have many others I can count on my fingers. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, but that's not the point; have you reverted to a version also reverted to by AKG within < 24h on multiple occasions? I suspect not. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per NxCrypto and RoySmith. I don't see any issue with unblocking right away. The presence of this editor is a net-benefit for this area. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment If unblocked, I would like to see AKG stay away from arbitration enforcement. There were a number of times - I count at least nine times between 2020 and 2023 - that they opened cases here trying to get editors on the "opposing" side blocked, and I don't think continuing this is a good idea. I also note that they were very active at SPI cases involving other editors in ARBIPA, which is another sign of BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      That, and the refusal to accept TBANs, gives me bad vibes.
      I also don't think that agreeing to use only one account is much of a concession, that's kind of a given, but I guess it's at least better than not agreeing to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, this is also my concern. I would have thought that we would expect an editor banned for socking in a CTOP to at least demonstrate their ability to collaborate well outside that CTOP before being allowed to edit it. I can understand the Support !votes above from other editors who generally edit from the same POV as AKG, but I'm still not thinking this is a brilliant idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      What is that "same POV as AKG"? It is certainly not their fault that you are assuming bad faith. Capitals00 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I don't need to AGF when the evidence is quite plain, as with the editor I mentioned above where I pointed out their tag-teaming issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This user edits via proxy with IPBE, and the breadth and depth of the deception shown at that SPI is considerable. Now they're back with a semi-plausible explanation, and I don't buy it. And the one-account restriction is more challenging to police with a proxy/IPBE setup.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • If he has agreed to one account restriction and this socking episode makes him ineligible for any future IPBE right, so what's wrong in allowing him back in since he has already served a year of block? Unless you are suggesting we completely ban those who have engaged in sock puppetry altogether, which is unrealistic. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • What's wrong in allowing him back is everything Ivanvector says in that SPI. Please read it carefully and then re-read AKG's unblock request with a critical eye.—S Marshall T/C 12:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I would support unblocking with an ARBIPA topic ban (which could be appealed later when AKG has proved they can edit well outside that area). But since AKG will not accept that TBAN I can only Oppose at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - The request is convincing and to-the-point. Those opposing are seemingly forgetting that it has been more than a year since this editor has been blocked. Azuredivay (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per above without any topic ban. It is totally unreasonable to seek punishment over the same offense even after WP:SO has been sufficiently met. Lorstaking (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      It is not at all unusual for editors seeking an unblock to be required to accept a topic ban as a precondition to that unblock. Here are two are recent examples from this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Whilst I don't support the topic ban, it would not be done as punishment, but as a measure reducing the likelihood of further disruption. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Caeciliusinhorto-public not good to compare community banned editors with this case. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support per Ivanvector: i.e. dependent on a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA and WP:ARBPIA and a single-account restriction. This will deal with the meat of the issue, while WP:ROPE should take care of the crust. SerialNumber54129 13:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose I find myself agreeing with Black Kite - if they are willing to come back with a topic ban that'd be one thing. Without it I'm concerned we'll just end up back at AN/I, SPI or AE again. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I will tentatively change my position to support provided it includes the topic ban. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose While I appreciate that brevity is required in unblock requests and people have different ways of writing stuff, as I noted above I feel the original unblock request was at a minimum intentionally evasive if not even misleading on whether Aman.kumar.goel had used the Editorkamran account directly. While they've now made it clear that they did so, the fact this only happened after editor questioned their story compared to the CU view makes me question whether it's because they didn't realise they were unclear or instead because they realised their evasiveness wasn't working. If they were evasive in their recent unblock request, this makes it very hard to trust Aman.kumar.goel. Further, even if Akg wasn't being evasive, it's very unclear why an editor with their experience didn't realise what they were doing was wrong until recently. I was originally willing to accept with a topic ban but frankly I'm now not even sure that's enough, but it's moot anyway. If this fails, I'd suggest on their next appeal Aman.kumar.goel ensures what they're telling us is clear from the get go. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support without topic ban. Sockpuppetry was the sole concern for the indefinite block. There is no evidence of any disruptive edits, as such the idea of topic ban makes zero sense. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Black Kite. Any unblock that doesn't involve a restriction on AKG's original area of disruption will simply allow for further disruption. The Kip 16:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Not at all. Very recently, several editors editing this subject and socked were unblocked recently without any topic bans, including one more editor who was banned per 3x. Nxcrypto Message 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Nil Einne. Being "intentionally evasive if not even misleading" during this unblock request and previously makes it very hard for me to trust this user. I'm glad they owned up to their outright sockpuppetry with Editorkamran and had they done so from the beginning of the request, I'd have considered supporting the request, provided they accepted the topic ban(s) suggested (so as to increase the odds of their future success). --Yamla (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose unless an ARBIPA TBAN is applied. AKG's edits have not always been a positive: their approach to contentious matters has often been needlessly aggressive, and they haven't always been able to engage constructively with users and sources they disagree with. In that context sockpuppetry is more than "just" sockpuppetry. Some examples: , , , , , , and (These are discussions, not diffs, but I believe the context is needed to demonstrate the pattern I see). Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      I would tentatively support with the TBAN they have now agreed to. I have no opinion on whether a PIA ban is needed: if they have edited in that area I haven't seen it. I was considering suggesting a ban from bring others to AE/AN/ANI, but perhaps some rope is appropriate there. In any case they should be aware that they are on thin ice. I would also note that under no circumstances should they be given IPBE in the foreseeable future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC) I'm sorry to vacillate like this, but based on comments by Ivanvector and Girth Summit I simply cannot support (NB: while I am a CU, I am obviously not acting as a CU in this case). Despite our past disagreements I had been willing to give AKG another chance, but that was based on the assumption that they were being fully forthcoming, and based on the comments of CUs familiar with this situation, it doesn't appear that they have come clean. Put me down as a neutral, I suppose, though I remain opposed absent a TBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Per Vanamonde, Tamzin, and Black Kite. It's telling that they won't accept a TBAN from my point of view. They were disruptive prior to their block and, as much as I want to assume good faith, I feel strongly that their refusal signals their intent to immediate jump into said area. There's also the concern that they may end up chasing other editors away from the site if they continue their aggressive behaviour and approach, which frankly I expect based on the lengths they went to in the past and the TBAN issue. I think this user was a net negative, chased people away from those areas, and made it more difficult for others to get involved with. Unblocking this user would end up leading to editor time wasted and would be a further net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Noting that I still oppose the unblock, even though they accepted the condition about a TBAN. I agree with Girth Summit that this seems to just be someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them. I also firmly believe that allowing them back onto the project will be a net negative. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Comment Aman.kumar.goel has requested this comment to be posted here from their talkpage:

    After seeing a number of editors, some of whom I respect, are supporting my unblock but only with a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA, I would like to accept the topic ban from the said area. Ping Yamla, The Kip, Black Kite, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Simonm223 and Vanamonde93. Thanks Aman Kumar Goel 17:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Would they also consent to the WP:ARBPIA topic ban? Because my understanding is that the ask was for both. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't believe the PIA issue is a problem, only the IPA one. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose an unblock based on this request. When I'm looking at an unblock request, I try to get a sense of whether someone is actually coming clean and saying 'I did this thing, I recognise that was out of order and I undertake that I won't do it again', or something along those lines. In this case, I don't see that. In their unblock request of 10 December 2024 (just a month ago), AKG seems still to be saying that they were not using multiple accounts - their argument seems to be that they accept there was a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:SHARE, but the two accounts were used by two different people from the same device. They have since swung round to acknowledging that they were in fact using the Editorkamram account, but are saying that they thought that was OK since the account really belonged to somebody else and they only used it from time to time. I'm afraid I simply don't believe that story, and I don't know what to think about their shifting narratives - I get the sense of someone saying whatever they think will convince people to unblock them, changing their story when it becomes apparent that it's not working, and failing to actually come clean about what they did and why they did it. If I don't trust someone in what they are saying in their unblock appeal, I don't trust them to abide by a one-account restriction - so, yeah, I don't think we can accept this request. Do some self-reflection, come back in six months with a frank and believable unblock request. Girth Summit (blether) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support. Seeing that AKG has agreed to the proposed IPA topic ban, the unblocking would be fine now. See no other issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support based on the comments from RoySmith and agree with their point that the AGF tank is gone for A.K.G. Any issues beyond a minor oops with their editing should be an immediate indef. No warnings, no "one last chance". That bridge was crossed, burned, torn down and barriers put up to block it from being rebuilt. Ravensfire (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    I hope A.K.G recognizes that is a last chance for them, and returning quickly to a contentious topic could be challenging for them to stay cool, engage in discussions but not disruption and that there will be enhanced scrutiny on their edits and willingness to take concerns to an admin board. They can't edit as they did before. Ravensfire (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I gave my reasons on the talk page; I don't trust this user. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
      Also I should point out that I was not involved whatsoever in the checks that led to this block; my comments on the talk page refer to emails I remember reading a year earlier on the private checkuser mailing list, which does not archive. I did check in relation to their unblock request recently and in my opinion that check was inconclusive; I elaborated on their user talk at the time. The result gives me pause because they had been using multiple accounts and evading checkuser for quite a long time before being blocked, while editing in one of our longest-designated contentious topics, one that's known to be very badly impacted by sockpuppetry and state-sanctioned disinformation campaigns. I suggested a topic ban from India-Pakistan for reasons that I think are already obvious from previous comments in this thread, and from Israel-Palestine because of something I thought I read on their talk page about a dispute in that topic, but I can't find that now and so I have to say I was probably out of line to have suggested it. But on the whole, I do not support unblocking, even with the proposed restriction. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Very, very weak support on unblocking here with a one-account and indefinite IPA topic ban restriction. I found my engagement with the editor at their talk page today to be somewhere between obstructionist and disingenuous — and from reading the comments above, others have got similar vibes from different comments earlier in this process regarding the sockpuppetry and willingness to accept a topic ban condition. As Ravensfire notes above, the assume good faith tank is just about empty here — which means any non-trivial lapse or return to suboptimal behaviours is going to end up with a pretty swift reblock. I am very sympathetic to the number of very experienced editors above saying that this editor is a time sink and a net negative, and while I don't necessarily disagree based on what I've seen at their talk page and the evidence presented here, I think it's worth trying here one more time — armed with account and topic ban restrictions, and a pretty clear sentiment from a number of admins commenting (both on the support and oppose sides) that any issues upon resuming editing will be handled swiftly. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support, but only with IPA topic ban, 1-account restriction, no VPN use, and no IPBE. That should allow us to be able to detect recidivism and limit potential damage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Black Kite, Tamzin, S Marshall, Girth Summit, and Ivanvector. Andre🚐 23:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose, agreeing with a number of editors above. I don't know if the two drafts, for Indian companies, would fall under WP:ARBIPA. Unfortunately, the editor does not seem trustworthy. Miniapolis 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - At the end of the day, the standard offer has been followed by this user for a long time. Don't see anything wrong with providing one more chance. Dympies (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose per comments of Blablubbs, Tamzin, etc. If they are unblocked, they should be under an India--Pakistan CTOP topic ban. --JBL (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose. The CheckUser evidence of overt sock puppetry (not meat puppetry) is pretty strong, and the repeated denials, which seem to get walked back over time, make this user seem untrustworthy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Support - Noting the opposes above, AKG has nevertheless agreed with a topic ban inline with many of the opposes. It shows he is willing to minimize any possible concerns and that is a good sign. Shankargb (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Oppose calling socking the sole issue is a red herring when there was disruption in addition, but the socking alone merited the block so they didn't need to be blocked for both. I think accepting the t-ban is more telling us what he thinks we want to hear, vs. awareness of why AKG shouldn't edit there. I do not think an unblock would be productive. Star Mississippi 01:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Import request

    Can you import, List of characters in brawl stars from simple Misplaced Pages. I created the page there. — Cactus🌵 07:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    I suppose you mean this page, which you didn't create at all though, and which is completely unsuitable for enwiki as it stands, being unsourced and lacking all indication of notability. Fram (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, they did create the page. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fram, oh, okay — Cactus🌵 09:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

    Requesting a range block of 109.172.86.0/24

    Special:Contributions/109.172.86.0/24 this range of IP addresses have solely been used to insert nonsensical characters. Another IP range has already been blocked for the same thing (they edited the same way). jolielover♥talk 10:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Looks like it's web hosting or something like that. Sometimes these kinds of services turn out to be proxies for schools or businesses, especially when there's petty disruption coming from them. There's nobody on this IP range at all, though, so it seems safe to hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:

    Coordinating arbitrators

    The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.

    Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

    The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

    • Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
    • Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
    • Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
    • Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
    • Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

    A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.

    For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding coordinating arbitrators
    Category: