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 17:50, 16 October 2013 editOrangemike (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators126,212 editsm →Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us: oops← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:49, 26 December 2024 edit undoAsilvering (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators37,119 edits →Unblock request for Aman.kumar.goel: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config

|algo = old(7d)
<noinclude> {{pp-move|small=yes}} {{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__{{Template:Active editnotice}}<!--
|counter = 367
template:User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
|maxarchivesize = 700K |maxarchivesize = 700K
|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|counter = 233
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|algo = old(2d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d -->{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis }}{{short description|Notices of interest to administrators}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Header}}</noinclude><!--S
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}} |header={{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive |archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive
Line 14: Line 14:
|age=48 |age=48
|index=no |index=no
|numberstart=238 |numberstart=255
|minkeepthreads= 4 |minkeepthreads= 4
|maxarchsize= 700000 |maxarchsize= 700000
}}
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!--
--><!--

---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here.
---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------


--><noinclude>


==Open tasks==
--></noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}
<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
== RfC validity review requested ==
{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
{{archive top|We're done here. ] was endorsed as within discretion. Original request has been clarified.--v/r - ]] 12:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)}}
{{Clear}}
I am concerned that a recently-closed RfC substantially violated ], resulting in keeping away interested editors and biasing the ones who appeared. I would like the validity of this RfC ruled on. For details, see ], particular the first link in it, which summarizes my concerns. ] (]) 18:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Admin tasks}}
__TOC__
</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->


== ZebulonMorn ==
:This is a content issue, not an administration issue. I respectfully point out that this is an inappropriate venue. ] (]) 19:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
::Not so sure about that. If you click that link you will see that the user who closed the thread at ANRFC directed him to bring it here, and if I take the meaning correctly what is being asked for is a review of the RFC itself, not the underlying content issues. ] (]) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC) {{atop|Closed with no action at the moment. {{u|ZebulonMorn}}'s last edit was nearly six days ago and some of their comments below appear to be conciliatory, although others were evasive—direct replies are wanted, not "Happy to answer anything else if needed". If further issues arise, please explain them at ] and ping me if necessary. ] (]) 02:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Hi, {{user|ZebulonMorn}} has ignored continual warnings on a range of topics (manual of style in military icons, minor edit purpose, citing sources, and more recently has ignored consensus on a NPOV on a BLP article). Request admin intervention. --] (]) 21:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yup. ]] 20:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


:{{yo|Engineerchange}} can you provide the community with examples linked with ]'s? Thanks. ] (]) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*And having reviewed the supposed "violations" in the framing of the RFC I must agree that there are none and the opening statement was appropriately neutral. And the close looks perfectly fair and clearly had a lot of thought behind it. I therefore endorse both the RFC itself and the close, and remind the reporting user that ]. ] (]) 20:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
::{{reply|Deepfriedokra}} Some examples:
*:Thank you. I had no horse in this race, and tried to write a neutral RfC. ] (]) 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
:: - Manual of style on military icons: {{diff2|1260496477}}, {{diff2|1260503015}}, {{diff2|1260347589}}, {{diff2|1260910501}} (each of these edits are after the last warning on their ] on Nov 29)
:: - Minor edit tag: {{diff2|1260928801}}, {{diff2|1260925564}}, {{diff2|1260877930}}, {{diff2|1260839845}} (each from the last couple days)
:: - NPOV about BLP: {{diff2|1261041427}}, {{diff2|1261024333}}, {{diff2|1261015833}} (user ignored feedback on their talk page and the page's talk page and has continued edit warring)
:: - not citing sources or adding info w/o support: {{diff2|1260938015}}, {{diff2|1260909087}}, {{diff2|1260544947}}, {{diff2|1260147566}}
:: Hope this helps, --] (]) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*I've made several changes to the articles ZM's added to. I would concur that this is POV pushing and it appears he opposes this Sheriff. I have no strong opinions on this individual, but at least some of the claims that he's made are not supported by ] and are in violation of that policy as well as ]. If it continues, a block to get the point across would be appropriate. ] (]) 01:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:ZM has continued to add negative/defamatory material about this individual against the general consensus of the editors involved. At this point, ZM, you '''need''' to use the talk page to come to a consensus. Otherwise, I support ] as suggested by Deepfriedokra for further edits on this page. In addition, ZM has uploaded a CLEARLY copyrighted image straight from twitter and released it under a false license. At this point, ZM's attempt seems to be to besmirch the sheriff (no idea on the motive here). In Any case, a full block would be acceptable as well under ]. ] (]) 23:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ping|Buffs}} I obviously don't know ZM's personal motivations, but for a history of the threats and attacks made against Chitwood during his tenure, please see . <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 15:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*My inclination is a ] from article space that can be unblocked if they answer here.] (]) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Hey! I'm getting in touch with you about a notice. Editing pages is pretty easy, but I'm still figuring out how to navigate the rest, so I'm sorry I put it in the talk page first. I've seen notices and some complaints, so first I should say nothing is intentionally nefarious. As far as the military edits go, I've figured that out, based on ] and ], so I've since ceased. I'm originally from Volusia and still technically have my residency there, so I do feel responsible and knowledgeable about the topics, however, after overwhelming pushback, I was clearly wrong. I don't work for any politicians nor am I associated with any, but there are people I find interesting and think have made an impact locally and should be included, but I get that requires a certain threshold and I was turned down. I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble or get myself blocked. ] was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy until the past few days or so and I haven't had any serious issues that I'm aware of since. I've made many edits since and most have been checked by ]. Happy to answer anything else if needed! ] (]) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
* Two questions for ]: 1) Do you have any personal connection to John Flemm (who you wrote ] which you then blanked and for some reason moved to {{-r|Draft:John}}) or any other politicians in Volusia County, Florida? 2) Is there a reason that your userpage largely copies ]'s, including the userbox saying how long you've been an editor? (This isn't an accusation of anything against Eyer, to be clear.) <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Something about mimicry and flattery, I guess? I'm curious to hear @ZebulonMorn's answer, too. —] (he/him) <small>If you ], add <code><small>&#123;&#123;reply to|Eyer&#125;&#125;</small></code> to your message.</small> 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@], I don't see an answer to Tamzin's question about your userpage? -- ] (]) 17:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Noting I have declined ] on the draft because it is relevant to ongoing discussion here. No objection to G7 once discussion concludes. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 18:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Not an admin, but I was involved in previous discussions on the person's talk page, so is it acceptable for me to comment?
*::The user in question has now deleted all past discussions on their talk page. I agree with above complaints that the user should at least be subjected to a partial block from editing articles about any Central Florida government officials. While Chitwood is the most egregious case, this user's entire edit history involves similar types of edits using unreliable sources in order to commit violations of ]. The Chitwood article is not the only problem here, with this same user pushing a POV in the following edit (a "minor" edit?) which had already been removed and reverted . <small>--Comment by </small> ] (] about my ]) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I would concur. ] (]) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


:My issues with ZM have been his lack of edit summaries and the unwillingness to engage in discussion with multiple editors who warned him on his talk page, which recently appeared as until he scrubbed the content without responding. Just today, he made this "minor edit" under his own self-stated rationale that "Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy" that he was editing, under, supposedly "until the past few days" but it never should have come this far.
:In regards to my decision to close rather than declare the RfC null and void per ], I did not agree that the opening statement to the RfC was particularly malfomed:
:@] has made a lot of messes for other editors to clean up, which he is unwilling even to talk about, let alone go back and fix, even after being asked multiple times to fix his mistakes. A Full Block is warranted. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:#Miles argued that the opening (seen ) was biased because it omitted material such as tertiary sources that favored use of qualifiers and lacked arguments based on Rand's academic standing. None of this is required in an RfC opening. Miles also objected the use of the word "opinion" to describe the use of "amatuer" and "self-styled" as qualifiers to describe Rand, which they were (because this description of Rand is not present in reliable sources).
::I'm sorry I was unclear on the use of "minor edit', I really didn't think it was too far, but I know better know. As far as that edit is concerned, was any of the information improperly sourced or unimportant? It hasn't been edited other than de-capitalization. I thought it was a good contribution that was similar other information under different offices. I'm really not trying to create "a lot of messes", I'm genuinely trying to contribute. As far as the engaging, that's my bad. I was still learning to figure out how to navigate wiki, but I've gotten better now. I'm not "unwilling" to talk though, I was trying to respond on talk pages for a couple days before I figured out this was the correct location, again my bad. I think a full block seems extreme, but that's not for me to decide. ] (]) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:#There was disagreement between Yworo and Miles on the phrasing, where Miles attempted to correct the RfC opener with which definitely does not present the topic neutrally, and in a later section. Yworo later reverted these changes and . This disagreement was perhaps a little disruptive, but given that the argument of initial bias is questionable, I do not believe this is a valid reason to call the discussion biased.
:::And, as I posted on your talk page before you ignored my comment and deleted it, please review our policies such as ]. In this edit for example, capitalizing words like "marketing", "full-time", "landscaping", "lifeguard", etc. are unnecessary. Cleaning up your messes like and takes time and effort. When another editor cites a rule that you broke, please read the rule and learn it, instead of joking about "ignore all rules" and making the same violation a dozen more times. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:#Miles argued that because the RfC was only included in the Biographies subtopic and ''not'' the Religion and Philosophy subtopic, the article attracted insufficient participation from the proper venues. He argued that this omission I didn't see any evidence that lack of education or interest in philosophy detracted or muddled the discussion.
::::Capitalization errors are clearly non-malicious edits and ], while tongue-in-cheek, is still official wiki policy. I've made over 1,000 edits, most of which remain unedited. If this is really the standard for a "full block", there's no point in anyone new genuinely attempting to edit wiki if they're blocked for capitalization mistakes.
:What I do see, if anything, is a great deal of ] on the part of Miles in the discussion, and this request to question my close, while valid, seems to be a continuation of that behavior. ]] 20:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Again, I apologize for not understanding what the discussion pages were and the lack of communication. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. ] (]) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|ZebulonMorn}}, can you respond to {{np|Tamzin}}'s questions above? ] (]) 21:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hello! My response to ] was kind of an amalgamation response to a few of the questions from people. I believe it was answered there, but if there is anything more specific I'm happy to answer. ] (]) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::"Ignore all rules", in full, says; {{tq|If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''.}} It does not mean that you can just do whatever you like. If other editors do not agree that your edit improved Misplaced Pages, or was necessary for maintenance, then it is not protected by "Ignore all rules." It does not excuse careless editing or flouting of policies and guidelines. ] 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


It's been a week. Could an admin be so kind as to weigh in here? Regardless of your conclusion ZM doesn't deserve to have this ] indefinitely. ] (]) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:Why was the RfC closed so quickly? I was in the process of developing a list of sources (I had already went through 13, published by Blackwell, OUP, CUP etc.) in order to offer an argument in the discussion. I would note that the discussion was mainly devoid of reference to reliable sources. The RfC started on September 24 and closed Oct 8th. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 21:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Just to be clear, I asked for an admin to rule on its validity and close it on a policy basis so that it could be opened again neutrally. That's not what happened, which is fine. The sooner it's gone, the sooner we can move on. ] (]) 02:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


:I'll renew my concern... ] (]) 14:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::It was closed because ] specifically requested closure, . It seems to have ]. ] (]) 02:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Atethnekos}} the discussion actually started back in August. See ]. And with 46 archive pages for ], I bet your RS has been hashed out previously. So I recommend you check. But please do feel free to improve the article. I hope you enjoy the foray! – ] (]) 05:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
::::I don't understand: that edit shows explicitly that he requested it be closed on "the basis of policy, not consensus". But the RfC was closed on the basis of consensus, explicitly. I still think the RfC should have been let to run for longer, if even just up to the standard 30 days. The RfC was being edited substantively less than 3 hours before closure (compare: and ). One can dismiss my would-be contribution as "hashed out" before having even seen it, but I think standards were not met with the result that I was not allowed to present it at all. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 06:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::As I said in the close and in the ANRFC request, assessing consensus ''is'' assessing relevant, policy-based arguments. ]] 08:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::{{reply to|I JethroBT}}, I think you misunderstand MilesMoney and Atethnekos. MilesMoney said, to paraphrase, 'please close this as malformed based on the procedural policy ] rather than weighing the merits and content policies.' After weighing the procedural policy, and finding it had not been violated, Atethnekos expected you to decline the close as you determined no procedural reason for close existed.--v/r - ]] 13:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, that does make more sense to me when described that way. Thanks for clarifying. Given that consensus was fairly clear though, I did not see much harm in closing. {{ping|Atethnekos}}, I'm open to hearing your arguments if you think they were 1) not considered in the present discussion and 2) present a compelling, new argument that would change consensus per ] under "Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review:" #1 and #3. You can leave those comments ]. However, given that consensus was fairly clear this time around and was endorsed, it might be better to to simply wait until the next RfC on the topic, which I anticipate will happen in a month. It's up to you what you'd like to do. ]] 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
{{ec}}
::::::::JethroBT did the right thing and did it well. The RfC was closed on the basis of consensus, and the various arguments about the lede were well laid out in the discussions. More importantly, no WP policy was violated in the discussion as ''the article'' complies with ]. The other issue concerns ]. E.g., were guidelines followed in setting up the RfC or in how it was carried out? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But editors are smart enough to figure out what ''editing issues'' were at stake. They had their say in this regard. Since no POLICY has been violated as a result of the RfC, the issue that MM is concerned about – policy violation – does not provide a basis for reversing the results of the RfC. {{ping|I JethroBT}} you did good. Thanks. – ] (]) 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Srich, aside from making another appearance in your whistle-stop and flattery tour for Admin candidacy, what earthly reason is there for you, an involved editor, to comment here after the matter has been reviewed and resolved? Please consider a ratchet down. ]] 16:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for your offer, I shall take you up on it. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 16:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
{{hat|Self-hatting own comments which are tangential to concern raised by MilesMoney. – ] (]) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)}}Specifico, I do not understand your comment. Seems that most of the editors in this discussion were involved in the Rand RfC. (Didn't you comment elsewhere on that talk page and comment on the same issues?) Please clarify how your comments help resolve the concerns that MilesMoney has raised here. (MM said: "I would like the validity of this RfC ruled on.") You might provide guidelines that say these involved editors (or any involved editors) should not "comment here after the matter has been reviewed and resolved". Thanks. – ] (]) 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)17:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}


It's these kinds of edits that continue to concern me. The sheer volume of purported "reliable sources" that are being added by the user and us editors having to search and destroy which ones are valid. The user's continued argument that every source the user adds is "reliable" (see {{diff2|1263412965}}). See {{diff2|1263414344}} - both sources appear reliable, but have no reference to the subject, completely ignoring ]. --] (]) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Guys, I created this section because I wanted the RfC's validity ruled on by an admin, not just an editor who chose to volunteer. I had expected an admin to respond to my closure request, so when that didn't happen, I came here. The RfC has since been ruled valid, and regardless of how I feel about the ruling, I am bound to accept it. As I said to Mark Arsten, "I will not dispute the results of this RfC nor edit against its stated consensus", and I'm going to continue living up to that.


:@] Hey, you might want to check the conversation again and do your own research first. ] (]) 17:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
So I'm not going to dispute the ''results'', but I'm still going to comment on how we got there, because it wasn't quite right. I'm glad the RfC is closed, one way or the other, because I don't see how dragging it out any longer could have helped. In my view (which is contradicted by Beeblebrox), the RfC was too flawed to come up with a meaningful result. Best to clear it out of the way and move on. More deeply, I think it was a case of the tail wagging the dog. The lede has to reflect the article, so any progress has to be to the article as a whole before the lede can be updated to reflect it.
::These edits and conversations have been taking place just over the past few hours and are ongoing. It appears you missed both references. It would probably serve us all best to wait until we finish communicating before jumping into the noticeboard, especially when it's clearly premature. ] (]) 17:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{reply|ZebulonMorn}} Respectfully, my comments are not premature; this noticeboard discussion is still active. Your insistence on adding more words to argue your point does not mean it meets ]. For instance, your comment "second source references Paul Terry visiting the school" is an example of a 'passing reference' to a topic, these are not ]. Citing the Facebook page for that preschool is not a reliable source. --] (]) 18:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::There are other ] from the ], ], and the county government. Facebook is just one source. I don't have control over ], which is why were discussing on the nominating page? I'm explaining and defending my edits, as you're supposed to do. I'm also adding further information to the article that's been nominated for deletion, as is suggested to keep it from being deleted. ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


On an AfD for a preschool, they mentioned "The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious" (with sources about Terry), to which I replied "And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? ]." Instead of replying, they decided to add this information to the article, so now we have an article about a preschool containing a whole section about a deputy sheriff who "murdered his 10-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son before killing himself" in 2005, with the only connection being that the same person once visited that preschool in 1999! This raises serious ] issues. As the AfD nominator, I have not removed the info from the article, but it clearly doesn't belong there at all... ] (]) 18:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Anyhow, TParis is correct that I requested that the RfC be closed on a policy basis, not a consensus basis. The result I expected is that, if there was no willingness to close it on a policy basis, it would remain open. JethroBT took matters into his own hands and did more than I requested. It didn't much matter this time, but it's still a bad thing. Editors answering requests shouldn't just go off on their own.


:Removed. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
My other concern is that JethroBT, in explaining his decision, admitted to some pretty basic factual errors. The biggest one is that he claimed there were no reliable sources for "amateur" or "self-styled". In fact, the two qualifiers are supported directly by the ''Oxford Companion to Philosophy'' and ''Reason.com'', and nobody has seriously questioned their reliability. The counterarguments have been on other bases, some of them involving policy.
::Thanks! ] (]) 10:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


Would an admin please weigh in here. This has been waiting for a conclusion for quite a while. I'll be satisfied with a non-admin closure if someone feels that's appropriate. ] (]) 19:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
While I am still not disputing the results, I don't feel that this methodology was sound or should be repeated in other cases. In particular, if he made such basic errors, then I don't believe he was qualified to come to any conclusions. I would politely suggest that he avoid getting involved in RfC's if he does not have the time to invest in actually reading what was posted. It's highly counterproductive.
{{abot}}


== Appeal of my topic ban ==
I would also have preferred it if Beeblebrox, not JethroBT, had explained their reasoning. I'm sure you can understand that "I don't see nothing wrong here" isn't a very satisfying explanation. If nothing else, I would have learned something if they'd explained their view of policy as it applies here.
{{atop|1=This has been open for two weeks, and {{ping|Stuartyeates}} hasn't edited since the 16th. Given the discussion below, I'm closing this with the following notes:<br>
<br>
(1) The topic ban is not repealed.<br>
<br>
(2) Stuartyeates is '''heavily encouraged to only edit using one account, and one account only'''.<br>
<br>
If (2) is complied with (1) can be revisited in another six months or so. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
TL;DR: on (roughly) the 20th anniversary of joining en.wiki, I'm appealing my years-long topic ban from BLPs.


After creating thousands of biographies (mainly of New Zealanders and/or academics) over more than a decade, on 25 Sept 2021 I created or expanded ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] with material on a then-current race controversy. I then continued editing as normal. Several months later (April '22) an editor raised issues with my edits of that day and I escalated to ]. After much discussion I received an indefinite topic ban from BLPs:
Finally, I feel strongly that the behavior of both Yworo and Srich32977 here has been atrocious. They show a strong ] mentality, and their subsequent actions on the article talk page were gross violations of ]; both took this as an opportunity to shut down discussions.
:: '''Stuartyeates is indefinitely topic banned from the subject area of biographies of living persons, broadly construed.''' (see ]).


Since the topic ban I've done some editing of en.wiki (>2,000 edits, some patrols and some barnstars), but I've been mainly active on wikidata (>60,000 edits, no barnstars).
That's all. Once again, I want to remind you that I am not disputing the results, and I will remain bound by them. That doesn't mean things were done right, and it doesn't mean Yworo and Srich32977 should go unpunished for their behavior. Regardless, the matter of the RfC should be considered closed. Please consider this a post-mortem, as we're examining an issue that is very dead. ] (]) 05:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:It is dishonest of you to say "I'm not disputing the results" and then go ahead and dispute the results by criticizing pretty much every step of what happened. I see no link to any URL pointing to Reason.com in the discussion (nor anywhere on the page currently), and I already noted in my close why the removal from the ''Oxford Companion'' is not compelling on its own: {{tq|Removal from a single compendium of philosophers does not seem to constitute a need to qualify the term.}} It's true that no one questioned the reliability of the ''Oxford Companion''. But that wasn't really the point-- several other concerns about heavy reliance on this source were raised: , , , . That you disagreed with all them does not null their arguments. ]] 06:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
::Calling me dishonest is simply a personal attack, as you are accusing me of intentional deception. I recommend that you redact that and accept that we have an honest disagreement.
::Unfortunately, you've made another factual error. If you read carefully, you'll find that there are '''two''' references to Ayn Rand in the ''Oxford Companion to Philosophy''. The one you referenced is in the preface, on page ''x'', which briefly mentions that Rand's bio was rejected. The other is on page 762, where it calls Rand's philosophy "amateur". It's mentioned on the article talk page, and I even linked to a ] of the relevant OCP article. The fact that you are unaware of this issue is deeply concerning.
::As for resistance to this source, the usual argument is that it's "only" one source, as if we need more, or that it's insulting, as if that's relevant. However, I haven't seen anyone claim that the ''Oxford Companion to Philosophy'' is unreliable, and I wouldn't take them seriously. If anything, it is one of the very best sources available, given its high academic standing.
::I'm sorry, but the facts here are entirely clear. I am not asking you to change what you did, or even apologize for it. I would prefer, however, that you recognize the errors you made and try to avoid making them in the future. I have to admit that you strike me as defensive and dismissive. I noticed, for example, that you didn't acknowledge that you went too far when you closed the RfC on the wrong basis. This is, as I said before, highly counterproductive. ] (]) 07:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


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


I'll readily admit that I went harder than I should have on 25 Sept 2021. I a non-BLP for the controversy was the right option. Mouthing off on twitter was the wrong option. I feel that I've done my time for what was clearly a one-off. If the topic ban is removed I'll not repeat that.
] on whether to add a template editor user right comes to a close today and will need to be assessed by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks to whoever chooses to take it on. <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #5BADFF">]] <span style="font-size:88%">16:46, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font>
:Any takers? PS. Be sure to use {{tl|closing}} if you've taken this on but haven't posted the close yet. <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #5BADFF">]] <span style="font-size:88%">02:40, 12 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font>
::The proper place to ask for closure is at ] which I've already done. It appears that admins are busy with other fires currently... ] (]) 13:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


Full disclosure: I was involved in ] and ]. I have previous appealled this topic ban at ]. The discussion at ] may also be relevant.
==Non-guideline page being edit-warred to be marked as guideline.==


It is my intention to notify ] of this appeal, since all this is New Zealand-related and I have a long history with those folks. I'll also be notifying the closing admin. ] (]) 09:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
] - which has never received any sort of community approval process - keeps being editwarred to be marked as a guideline. It's a poorly-written mess, and well below the standards of any real guideline. It has never had any sort of community approval process, it was just marked as a guideline, while existing so far out there from normal editing that no-one noticed for a while. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 22:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:I kind of agree with you, but, I strongly advise you to drop the issue. There appears to be a consensus at VPP that this isn't a problem and it's been de facto accepted as a guideline due to it's unchallenged use. Right or wrong, your concern has not gained community support.--v/r - ]] 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:It's been marked a guideline for half a decade, and it's regularly enforced, so it is a guideline. A less-than-professionally written guideline, certainly, but even our most globally relevant and accepted policies started in similar states. More to the point though, Adam, since you've rejected and ignored many invitations to collaborate in improving it —even refusing to explain what you wish it said in the part you dispute— in favor of policy-violating forum shopping, canvassing, and edit warring, there is no reason to take any complaint you make about it seriously any longer. --] <small>]</small> 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
::I think this *is* a guideline, by silent consensus, and through the actions of editors enforcing that written in the guidelines across various pages. Promotion to a guideline simply requires consensus, and if nobody complained or was able to remove the guideline tag in all of these years, that suggests the bulk consensus is it is a guideline - we're not a bureaucracy and we don't always have to follow proper procedures. I'd suggest you (a) identify clearly the problems with it and work on a consensus basis to improve and (b) or if you think it is unfixable or in need of a massive rewrite that will take months, start an RFC that is broadly advertised to have it downgraded from guideline status.--] (]) 23:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
:::That would be ], to drop the proper bit of ]. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 00:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The '''only''' people who were calling for it to be a guideline at VPP are the members of the Wikiproject. Literally all non-membersd thought it was questionable. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">''']''' <sup>(])</sup></span> 06:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Being a member of a wikiproject doesn't make their views any less valid. You seem to really want this downgraded, and a broadly advertised RFC is the best way to make that happen. Consensus can change, and maybe now there is consensus that it is not a good one. I'd suggest rather focusing on fixing it until it's at a state you and other opponents can accept as guideline-ready. The tag at the top of the page is not the most important thing here.--] (]) 07:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


=== Comments by uninvolved editors ===
*'''Close''' - per close at (to allow discussion to be in one place or to be posted to a forum where such guideline decisions can be made). However, here's my two cents. Guidelines require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline (not just WikiProjects). See ]. There does not seem to be too much participation in developing that page. Only one editor with more than twenty edits to the page and none of the editors with more than ten edits are an admin. There are a lot of linkes, but it's hard to say what that means (e.g., whether the page has been used/enforced as a guideline for years or something else). If the page sat at ] for years with a guideline tag, then ] would seem to apply. When was the page first listed at Manual of Style? Why the opposition to this page being a guideline (do other MoS guidelines already sufficiently cover the issues in the page)? Given the lack of users who have significant edits to the page, I tend to think that following ] with a request to make Anime- and manga-related articles a guideline may be needed to establish a high level of consensus from the entire community needed to create a guideline. -- ] (]) 09:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Support unbanning'''. A single accidental mistake on a different wiki wouldn't violate topic ban on the ENWP slightly. Making BLPs is a risky task, I just made some BLPs which are a translation from RUWP, but one of them is nominated for deletion. Just be careful of the text and use sources carefully. ] (]) 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Close''' as per the previous VPP close. There's no issue with the only people supporting a subject guideline being from that subject's WikiProject. At the end of the day, it's that WikiProject that set it up, and will use it most often; unless their guideline directly contradicts any policies or wide-reaching guidelines, then it should remain a guideline. Issues with exact content, writing style and so forth should be dealt with via reasoned discussion, or proactive attempts at improving it. ] ] 10:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


'''Comment''' {{yo|Stuartyeates}} You've glossed over having deliberately violated ] as part of a disagreement with others. (Per {{ping|Jayron32|Cullen328}}'s opposes in last appeal.)] (]) 13:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
==Admin bot==


* I would want to hear from the other involved editors before endorsing a complete lifting of the restriction, but I will suggest limiting the restriction to "race/ethnicity topics involving living people"; that should ensure that Wikidata-related edits do not inadvertently violate a ban. ] (]) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Would it be possible to start a bot with admin rights, to do very basic tasks, such as deleting redirects to deleted articles, deleting talk pages without a main article etc.? Or does one already exist? ]] 11:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support lifting the ban''' or limiting it to the restriction suggested above, per my comments at the ]. The ban seemed overbroad to me in the first place: yes, the conduct was egregious, but the remedy was not tailored. As I wrote two years ago, {{tq|I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that.}} ] (]) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC) <small>(Non-admin comment. I was visiting this page to check on another discussion and happened to see this thread.)</small>
:There are already several admin bots, though I'm not sure if they do what you're suggesting. <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #5BADFF">]] <span style="font-size:88%">11:56, 11 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font>
*'''Deeply concerned''' about the sheer number of alt accounts. It took some digging but I found at an afd related to Donald Trump, which makes this a BLP issue. Another alt for a blp. Perhaps not a huge deal in and of itself but technically a violation nonetheless. And by another sock, concerning a list of people, some of whom are alive. by another sock earlier this year. With so many other accounts, who knows what other violations may exist? I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction. Actually I don't support this unless and until Stuart restricts himself to one account for at least six months. It's not feasible to monitor fifty+ alts for violations. ] ] 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::...bots run by admins or bots with full admin rights? ]] 12:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:* '''I concede that these are breaches of my topic ban''', I'll take that on the chin. I'm sorry I made those edits, I shouldn't have. In my defense (a) They're 100% accidental (b) None of these appears to be related to the issues that led to the topic ban or contentious in any way (c) There are four of them, over the same time I count seven barnstar or barnstar-like awards on my talk archives, so they don't reflect the body of my work over that time. ] (]) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
(ec) There are less than 1000 bots, and scanning through them I saw 8 that had both a bot & sysop flag. They are:
:*:Those are four that I found, my point stands that it is almost impossible to know how many more there may be considering the absurd number of alts you have. Barnstars don't change any of that. ] ] 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{user|7SeriesBOT}}
:*::I also find it hard to believe that you accidentally commented on Donald Trump. He's famously totally alive. ] ] 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{user|Cydebot}}
*I was prepared to advocate on your behalf... but I'm also concerned based on the number of accounts and what's gone on with them. I'm also looking through your talk page archives (] and ]) and noticing that the barnstars and related awards I'm seeing were actually mostly given by me. Archive 25 has 6 awards given by me as as the result of your participation in backlog drives, one for your participation / contributions for the year (end of year NPP award, given by Dr vulpes), and an AfC backlog drive award (from Robertsky). #26 has an NPP backlog drive award as well (also given by me). I do appreciate your contributions to NPP, but there is a bit of a difference in people going out of their way to give barnstars for great work and receiving them as the result of participation in backlog drives.
*{{user|DYKUpdateBot}}
:Anyways though, back to the key issue for me, your use of multiple accounts. JSS said "{{tq|I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction.}}", is this something you're willing to commit to @]? I personally don't understand your usage of, and the large amount of alts that you have. ] (]) 13:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{user|ListManBot}}
:'''Oppose''' These alt accounts are a nonstarter for me (some blocked) as are the acknowledged breaches of the topic ban. If they were inadvertent or debatable, I could possibly see fit to give them some slack, but what I'm seeing here doesn't give me a good feeling that lessons have been learned. Show us you can abide for at least 6 months and commit to a single account and I would reconsider. ] (]) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{user|Orphaned talkpage deletion bot}}
*{{user|ProcseeBot}}
*{{user|TorNodeBot}}
*{{user|Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot}}
Check out each one and see what turns up. Rgrds. --] (]) 12:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:: Since 7SeriesBOT already does deletions, this makes sense as an added task <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 13:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::If it could do that would be great. I'm trying to think of similar tasks that would be suitable for a bot but I think those two are all for now. ]] 13:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Per the ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). Most of these bots haven't edited in more than a year and should have their Admin rights removed until they are needed. IMO these are even worse than individual accounts because they are bots. 7SeriesBOT hasn't really done any editing in a long time. Just a couple edits that appear to potentially be errors or test edits on the part of the operator.] (]) 13:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::: 7SeriesBOT doesn't EVER edit anything ... it only deletes. It's exempt from the desysop due to non-editing <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::I've reserved Cyberbot III for when/IF I become an admin. I'll ping BWilkins to see if he's willing to add this task to his bot. IP, the bot is active in deleting stuff. —] ]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 14:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::<small>Psst...He's already here: ES&L=BWilkins. Rgrds. (same 64.85 as above) Rgrds. --] (]) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
*Hold on a second. Redirects often have history, may be required to remain for attribution purposes, and can often be just re-targeted rather then deleted. Likewise, talk pages without an article are sometimes the result of an article being created in the wrong name space, or may otherwise contain information that needs to be reviewed. We need to be exceedingly cautious with bot deletions. ]] 14:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:*An article is created at ] and is then moved to ], creating an automatic redirect. The latter is deleted at AFD, but the admin forgets to delete the redirect. I see no harm ''at all'' in having a bot clean that element up. ]] 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::*An article is created at ] and is then moved to ], creating an automatic redirect. At AfD the consensus is "Merge content to ] and delete" This is done, but the history remaing under the redirect is required for proper attribution of the merged content. How does the bot tell this case from the previous one? ] ] 16:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::*] ''has'' no history in this case, only the creation of a redirect. ''All'' the history was at ] - which is why "merge and delete" '''can not''' be an AfD result because it creates ] by breaking the attribution chain. In "merge" results a redirect ''must'' be kept. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 19:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::: ] (guideline) and ] (essay) are the relevant pages. ''Merge and delete'' is usually – but not always – an incorrect outcome. ] (January 2013) has some discussion about ] redirects without sufficient checking. Talk page templates like {{tl|Copied}} and {{tl|afd-merged-from}} are supposed to prevent incorrect deletions. ] (]) 04:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


=== Why I use alts ===
*As someone who <small>tries to</small> maintain ] to a reasonable level, I can certainly say the '''biggest''' influx of these is by former titles of now-G13'd AfC submissions. I've tried using Twinkle's batch-del functions to rather mitigated results. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)'''&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 16:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
About 15 years ago during a round of the eternal "should all newcomers be welcomed (by a bot)?" discussion, some HCI person wrote a blog post on a long-defunct uni blog site. They said experienced editors are underestimating (a) how many new users are being welcomed (we only see the problems) and (b) the retention bonus of real human interaction. They challenged us to create a new user account and try editing using it for a while. Some of us did. Some of us found that editing with a clean account removed distractions (no watchlists to watch, no alerts to check, no !votes to vote in because we weren't allowed, no tools to use, no noticeboards like this to update, etc) and that we enjoyed focusing on the barebones editing, usually wikignoming. Discussion about the welcoming issue were less clear cut, but led to a bit of a game, where you see how many edits you can go without getting a user talk page. The game got harder when some wikis introduced auto-welcoming and clicking on an interwiki link lost you the game.
::It appears that the problem stems from Admin error. Perhaps this is due, at least in part, to the current climate of not promoting the right editors to admins. If we were promoting those who were technically competent rather than only those who play nice and stay in their corner, we would have less problems with these things not being done correctly. I see no reason to create a bot to clean up after complcent admins. It would be better to ensure those folks fix their mess or allow people who know what they are doing to help instead of tell them they aren't needed or wanted because they are critical of admins and the broken system that is currently in place. ] (]) 16:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Actually, no. Most admins I know use an AFD helper script to close AFD's. If that script were somehow tweaked to check the "What links here" for the article, and see if any of those were redirects to the article being deleted, and then delete that redirect at the same time the article was deleted, then you would not have these occasional glitches. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::As I just pointed out below, '''it already does'''. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)'''&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 18:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::What they should be doing is checking the what links here for associations '''before''' running the helper script. So yes, it is a result of the admins not doing what they should be doing. Not as an afterthought. Part of that problem is that there is more work for the number of people doing it, hence all the backlogs. So many of them feel rushed to get it done. Hence, more help being needed from experienced editors. If only we still assumed good faith in our editors and everything in this Wiki weren't protected, life would be a much better place. But, since we no longer have faith or trust in our fellow editors, have massive amounts of content restricted or blocked from view/edits, we are left with an overburdeoned admin corps. ] (]) 16:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::For straight up deletions, I always check the "Delete redirects" box, or check for redirects to be deleted manually. I agree that admins deleting pages without doing this (despite the system message reminding them to do so) are the ones performing their work incompletely. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)'''&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::Which goes back to my earlier point that too many (and more so in recent times) of the admins being promoted are political/popular promotions rather than promoting the people with the skills necessary for the job. Its common to see an editor get promoted who knows nothing about the technical side but doesn't ruffle feathers. Its relatively rare to see a technical editor who frequently participates in the drama boards and deals with controversial stuff, and isn't already an admin, get the tools. So whether its the intent or not, the morale of the story is if you ever want to be "trusted" don't participate in any of the controversial areas until '''after''' you get the tools. Otherwise your likely to torpedo your chances. ] (]) 18:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::''*shrugs*'' I'm not arguing about admniship or RfA. All I'm saying is the administrators are '''specifically reminded to delete redirects when deleting a page''', whether or ; negligently failing to do so needlessly creates broken redirects. It literally takes mere seconds and it is the '''responsibility of the deleting admin's''' to clean up after themselves. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)'''&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 18:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::And that is why it will continue to be an issue. Because the only ones that want to talk about and fix the broken RFA system are the ones no one wants to listen too. Part of the reason why this is a problem is because we don't have enough people with technical skills with with the admin tools. Just the folks who hide and slide. Of the 25 or so editors who got the tools this year, less than 5 are technical. Only a few use their tools on more than an occasional basis and most of the rest rarely use their tools at all. ] (]) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


Most of my 'game' edits were tidying up backlogs so minor / obscure they're not even tracked as backlogs. So https://quarry.wmcloud.org/';%20drop%20database%20prod; is a series of queries finding old articles without a talk page (and thus not assigned to wikiproject) so I can add them to wikiprojects. The username is taken from the cartoon at https://xkcd.com/327/ . For the last decade, me 'game' editing was en.wiki editing I've actually really enjoyed.
*i'm pretty darn sure there is a bot that ''tags'' talk pages with no corresponding article for speedy deletion. Forgetting to do so is one of the more common admin errors, especially with new admins, but it is hardly indicative of some sort of serious problem as some are implying here. ] (]) 21:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:*I delete thousands of pages that are former titles of now-G13'd AfC submissions per month, and the names of the deleting admins are certainly recurring; same goes for redirects to other deleted pages. The biggest problem isn't about talk pages of deleted pages, it's redirects to deleted pages. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">''':)'''&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 21:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
*I don't think bot ''deletion'' of orphaned talk pages is a good idea. Not infrequently the author of a speedy-deleted page who has contested deletion on the talk page re-visits it to add a further comment/complaint/question, and (some of) those need to be answered. ] (]) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:*{{ping|GiantSnowman}} — we already have a bot working on pages that redirect to deleted or nonexistent pages; it's ], run by ]. Rather than deleting them, the bot tags the redirects with {{tl|Db-redirnonebot}}, because these pages often shouldn't be deleted; that's the reason the template has a big warning in red letters. Sometimes someone vandalises the redirect so that it goes to the wrong place, while for other redirects there's a related topic, so the solution is retargeting rather than deletion. As a result, there are numerous cases in which blind deletion would be harmful, so a bot to delete broken redirects would not be a good idea. ] (]) 15:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
===Please stop being negligent===
*Currently working through a batch of these, and while I hate to single anyone out, I'll politely remind the two admins whose names I see over and over again (although this stands for ''every admin'' working on page deletion), {{ping|RHaworth}} & {{ping|Sphilbrick}} (<small>I consider these pings notification enough</small>), to please clean up after themselves and delete redirects to pages they delete, especially declined or abandoned AfC submissions. Having to G8 '''thousands''' of broken redirects negligently left behind on a monthly basis is not something anyone should have to do. The "normal" broken redirects that need to be fixed are already numerous enough. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 03:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::{{U|Salvidrim}} '''Question''' Since it's my bot that's been doing a fair amount of the G13 nominations, would a preemptive tagging of the redirects to the G13 nominated article (Some hybrid of G8-G13 to indicate that once the G13 goes through the G8 should be processed) be helpful for reducing the amount of broken redirects left behind? ] (]) 13:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Meh, whether someone patrols broken redirects or G8 deletions, it still ends up involving two people having to check out the same set of pages twice to clean it all up. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 20:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{ping|Salvidrim!}} that's silly. If they're taking the time to delete orphaned G13's which aren't any good, why make them do any more work? The broken redirects aren't going to cause any major problems and someone will clean out the backlog just like you're doing. ] (]) 15:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::What's silly is involving two people having to repeat the analysis of the same set of pages, instead of one doing it all at once. It causes confusion amongst the users drafting through AfC, because often they have their userspace draft watchlisted, not the AfC sub because it was moved later, and they don't see the G13, they see my G8 of their userspace draft-redirect and come to me for explanations. It'd be highly preferable if the person cleaning out the declined AfC submissions also took care of the userspace redirects so that the drafting user only sees one name across the board. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 20:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::If you have a page watchlisted and it gets moved, the new page is on your watchlist too, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. ] (]) 21:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::I meant bookmarked (new users possible are even unaware of the Watchlist function). See lower my other reply. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 21:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|Salvidrim}} ''and they don't see the G13, they see my G8 of their userspace draft-redirect and come to me for explanations'' I'm going to call BS on that. The bot notifies the creator once the page is eligible for G13 that they need to do something. The bot notifies the creator when the nomination for G13 actually occurs. TWINKLE notifies the user who created the page that the page is being nominated for G13. The only reason why a user might not get a notification of G13 nomination is if someone was doing it by hand. ] (]) 13:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::{{reply to|Hasteur}} Oh, '''please'''. , , , , . <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 20:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::{{reply to|Salvidrim}} Example by example analysis
::#] has never existed, so your misleading deletion rationale is your own fault.
::#That doesn't appear to be a complain of "why did you" but a thank you for helping them consolidate and delete
::#User is indef blocked for edit warring but their AfC submission still exists. They appear to be poking you about getting help with the AfC submission, not complaining about a stealth deletion
::#User's submission still exists and hasn't been deleted, user is just petitioning you about how to improve the article, not complaining about deletion
::#] still exists and the user is trying to get a new "trial" by changing the name which I would assume that you can admit is deceptive and evasive of the established processes.
::Any more diffs you'd like to present to shore up your case or should we dismiss your complaint as grumpy-old-man syndrome? ] (]) 12:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:::You should '''listen''' to my complaint, even if it's a grumpy-old-man syndrome (or projected OCD), but I don't see any reason to dismiss a reasonable request for admins to perform deletions correctly and thoroughly in order to simplify everyone's workflow. You're of course absolutely free to disagree with the merits of said suggestion if you prefer the current status quo. The point with the above diffs that you seem to be disregarding is that the users came to '''my''' talk page after I deleted a userpace broken redirect which should've already been deleted by the admin who deleted the target of said redirect. I shouldn't even be involved; I'm just the guy who cleans up messy broken redirects left behind by other valid deletions performed by other admins who should be the ones to answer queries about their deletions. Having no broken redirects ever is clearly utopian, but IMO such maintenance-positive goals are things everyone should strive towards. It's nice to have obsessed gnomes like me cleaning these things up, but ideally it shouldn't be needed. <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 12:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


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


One of my alts was created to test for a bug which is now fixed in the upcoming IP Account thingie.
I have just broken my promised holiday from my admin account in order to semi-protect 2 user talkpages from what was increasingly disgusting and persistent acts of threats, personal attacks and vandalism towards those two editors from someone with both the will and ability to change IP addresses very quickly. The two user talk pages are:
* ] (specific edits needing removal and leading to protection: and
* ] {specific edits needing removal and leading to protection: and


Several times I've created a new account to be sure that something works the way I remember it, in order to help someone else or to take a screenshot (for socials or a blog). WMF improvements have been focused on the onboarding process and branding so there have been a lot of changes over the last 20 years. If you haven't created an alt on en.wiki in the last decade, I doubt it will be as you remember it. Trying to 'reset' an old account has some interesting effects too, but that's another story.
It was my belief that due to a) the fact that I might be one of the few who have both of those talkpages on my watchlist b) the disgusting and violent nature of those attacks, and c) the speed with which they were changing IP's, that rather than post a request at ANI or RFPP, I was better off protecting the pages immediately myself.


Some of my alts have a humourous intent, ] is my most longstanding one, and I was setting up several alts for a christmas joke when the issue at ] blew up. I've had positive feedback on my joke alts, most was off-wiki, but see for example ].
I welcome review of my actions in this specific case. I will be notifying the two users whose pages I protected momentarily for their comment. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 10:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:It needed to be done so I have no complaints. As for who the IPs are: I have NO idea! I reverted their vandalism on ] and then they just started coming after me. I also have no idea as to why they went after MoonMetropolis as they are currently blocked for edit warring. ]&#124;]&#124;] 10:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:I agree it needed to be done quickly. I have revdel the revisions from the history because they are extremely offensive. ]&nbsp;] 12:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


As far as I can tell there are no en.wiki policies against how I use alts . As far as I can tell there are no WMF policies against how I use alts. I'm aware that a number of people appear to be deeply opposed to it, but I've always been unclear why, maybe you'd like to try and explain it?
::I think it was terrible and that you should either: shave your head and become a Buddhist monk or immediately commit seppuku. Oh wait, nevermind, this isn't Clavel's Shogun. Carry on. <span style="border:1px solid #900;padding:2px;background:#fffff4">]&nbsp;]</span> 14:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban. They were all done on my main account which is also my real name and the one I use on my socials. ] (]) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:The IPs are proxies, probably open proxies and should be blocked for longer. ] (]) 17:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


:{{tq|As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban.}} Wrong. A sanction applies to the ''person operating the account'' regardless of whether they are using their main account or an alternate account. You are appealing an editing restriction. It is unreasonable to even ''ask'' the community to determine that all fifty or so accounts have not been violating that restriction, but by appealing you are essentially asking that. It took me quite some time to find the examples above, due to the sheer number of accounts involved. I certainly did not check every single one, but it is reasonable to conclude there are more violations than the ones I have already brought forth. ] ] 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've reblocked 62.103.75.93 for six months as a proxy server. Could you please supply the other IPs here? ] &#124; ] 10:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC).
::@], I'm confused about this discussion of "alts" – do you have a list of these somewhere? If they aren't disclosed clearly on wiki, and they're being used to evade a topic ban or to participate in project space, they aren't alts – they're socks. – ] 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Three have already been blocked as proxies (], ] and ]); the other is ], which was only blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks. ] (]) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Good, this person is helping us find quite a few open proxies. One year for 190.151.10.226 also. Thank you, Peter. ] &#124; ] 12:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC). :::More importantly, does Stuartyeates have a list of them somewhere? 😜 ] (]) 23:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I was working off the list of admitted alts . It's... a lot. And no, they are not all clearly tagged as alts. I'm actually rather surprised this did not earn them a block. Perhaps {{yo|HJ Mitchell}} can offer some insight into that? ] ] 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good calls, good work, and quick action was certainly needed there. Has anyone notified WMF of the threats? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::I think that's hardly adequate per ]. ] (]) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Our charming little vandal appears to have come back now that the talk pages of ] and I have become unprotected. Oddly enough, they seem to only target us as far as I know.--] (]) 09:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::Well,I blocked several of them a while ago, I think following a thread on checkuder-l. The creation of so many accounts, especially with borderline disruptive usernames, naturally drew suspicion. I'm not sure what Stuart was trying to do. I don't know if he intended such a good impression of a troll or LTA but that's what he achieved. ] &#124; ] 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have reverted, Revdeled, and blocked {{IP|116.90.230.222}} and {{IP|197.210.252.44}} each for 6 months. ]] 09:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Thanks again! ]&#124;]&#124;] 10:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


:I'm unaware of any accusations that I've used alts as sockpuppets, except for the decades-old allegations above which were clearly boomerang. If there are any allegations that I've done this, please be clear about them. There is a list of all alts I'm aware of at ]. ] (]) 06:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
==]==
::@]: To be clear, the TBAN-violating edits on your alts do constitute sockpuppetry as a matter of policy. Honestly I'd thought policy forbids any undisclosed alternate account use for someone subject to an editing restriction, but it looks like the letter of policy, at least, only says that for ]. I wonder if this should be clarified in policy, as it's not really possible to enforce editing restrictions against someone when you don't know what username they're using. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{atop|Both articles deleted and salted by ], no personal attacks detected, nothing more to discuss.--] (]) 10:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)}}
:::Well said. The TBAN applies to the ''person behind the accounts'' regardless of which account they use. ] (]) 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
This user do attacking me personal. Also he is not going for a objective factual dispute but is simply allegations and personal assessments as facts. Would be nice if someone could tell him this is not legal on Misplaced Pages. Thank you] (]) 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:: And also every single edit Stuartyeates has made since January 2024 is a sockpuppetry violation since several of the alts were blocked then (there are also blocks from earlier but they were username softblocks so can be ignored here), right? ] ] 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Recommended reading: ]. ] is a recreation (by GeorgLeft) of an apparently self-promotional article that has been previously deleted at AfD both under tha current name and as ] (the latter as recently as a week ago...). Which is why I have nominated it for speedy deletion as G4. And there have of course not been any personal attacks. Nor have I been informed of this AfD other than through the notification system... ] ] 17:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
{{abot}}
: I do not see any ground for the dispute. You created an article which has previously been deleted and which does not contain a single ].--] (]) 17:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


== Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art ==
And again. Everyone else got to proof everything 10 times and eaven this is not enough. But Mr Thomas just claim whatever he wants. And the best argument he got - an OTHER article about this person has been deleted once.
Bye the way Thomas. this is not the subject here. the subject is you are attacking me, dont be nice, objective, stay with facts and dont follow many wikipedia rules and act like you would be the King of wikipedia.
You decide whats right and whats wrong, you dont need facts, if you say something this is fact enough and you are the greatest here. Thats what it is about here ] (]) 17:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


Patrolling recent uploads at Commons, I noticed that Socialpsych22 (]), ChloeWisheart (]), and AlicerWang (]) all uploaded AI images and put them in what look to be school essays within a short period of time. It looks like someone might be teaching a class and using Misplaced Pages as part of it, without teaching them how Misplaced Pages article are structured or about ]. Figured I'd brink it to folks' attention here. Cheers, ] (]) 23:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:The salient fact is that Michel von Tell does not meet Misplaced Pages notability guidelines, as has been repeatedly made clear. And yes, if you post here, you can expect your own behaviour to be looked into. Including asking whether you have used multiple accounts. Have you also posted as ]? Before you answer that, I suggest that you take note that we have methods which can detect the use of such multiple accounts. ] (]) 18:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{nacc}} Even though none of the three accounts seem to be students in a ] affiliate course, you could still try asking about them at ] on the of<s>t</s><u>f</u> chance that one of the Wiki ED advisors that typically help students remembers a username. Otherwise, I don't think there's much to do if there are no serious copyright (images or text) or other policy violations. Generally, users are given a bit of leeway to work on things in their userspace and it's possible these could be good-faith drafts, i.e. not really eligible for speedy deletion per ]. I guess the "draft" that's not already in a user sandbox could be moved to one just to avoid it mistakenly being tagged for speedy deletion per U5, and perhaps welcome templates added each user's user talk page, but (at least at first glance) I'm not seeing a reason why any of these would need to be deleted. -- ] (]) 01:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)<ins>; Post edited. -- 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</ins>
::{{nacc}} I've moved the userspace one to draftspace and left a message on that editor's talk page asking if it's for school work, so hopefully they'll be able to give more information. ] (]) 03:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Another one just appeared at ]. ] (]) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:The good news is that the few references I checked were real, not LLM hallucinations. Hoping the AI is only used for images, not text. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:Is there any kind of guideline about including AI artwork in articles on here or is it just based on people's feelings in the moment at this point? --] (]) 14:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I did not - not eaven talked to him. If i see this right he nominated the article for deletion. Dosent make much sence.
::There'sn't. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
But this isnt the point here. The point is Thomas attacking me personal. This is what it is here about. ] (]) 18:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:::IMHO we shouldn't have any AI artwork in articles, because leaving all "artists' livelihood" concerns aside, image-generating AI is, as I understand it, often trained using copyrighted images - which makes their creations copyright violations. - ] <sub>]</sub> 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::This is not true. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Commons treats AI works as being in the public domain because copyright requires human authorship, however there's a warning about derivative works. I personally agree with The Bushranger that they should all be treated a copyvios, but that's something that's working its way through the courts, IIRC. ] (]) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I would concur with jpxg. You're incorrect on this front. By that logic, anyone who was trained in artistic methods of the another living/recently deceased artist (say ]) couldn't legally make similar paintings. ] (]) 22:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It is ''prima facie'' possible to create derivative (e.g. copyright-encumbered) works in literally any medium. This does not mean that all works are derivatives. For example, this ASCII sequence is a derivative work:
<pre>
_o_
| <--- Spider-Man
/ \
</pre>
This does not mean that the ASCII character set ''itself'' infringes copyright, nor that all ASCII sequences infringe copyright. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Note: I have informed the ] of this discussion. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
:<small>(ec)</small> Well, since it's Saturday evening here in Europe I guess incoherent posts should be expected. I'm bowing out of this pointless "discussion" here on ANI because having incoherent posts about ] in one place, ], should be more than enough. Besides, since I wasn't even properly notified, as the rules say I should have been, I guess I wasn't invited to the Saturday night party on ANI anyway. ] ] 18:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
:: the rules say - be nice - stay objective - no personal attacks - no assertions - and so on. lets make it short. the only thing you had to say - an OTHER article about this is deleted before - its not the same article so this is no argument at all. you just declared personal that all the 23 sources are not good - without any prove or argument - you just say so- you ignoring every of my arguments because they are fact and then you attack me. you just switch subject and assert i have an other account. eaven if this is absolutely irrelevant for the debate if this article is keep or delete. and also this guy was on your side not on my! but have a nice evening - maybe you are less destructive after it. have fun ] (]) 18:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.


Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
::"in one place, ]" - which may be deleted. ] has been deleted before, was there any discussion there? ] (]) 18:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
{{abot}}
Slightly belated reply to ]: I wouldn't call it a discussion, it was more of an incoherent rehash of previous AfDs for ] and ]. ] ] 18:42, 12 October 2013 (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 ].}}
*(e/c) Just a quick explanatory note: it was, indeed, essentially the same article; 23 sources this time, but they were the same type as the five sources in the deleted article, and ''none'' of them ''addressed the notability'' of the article subject. That's enough re-creation; I've salted both titles, and ] will need to be used if someone ever wants to recreate the article. Also, if I had more time, I'd probably file an SPI on GeorgeLeft, except now that the articles can't be recreated at will, it probably doesn't matter. And Thomas, I didn't see any personal attacks, but I did see some rudeness - probably due to frustration, which is understandable - that were nonetheless unhelpful. --] (]) 18:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Seeing what is obviously the exact same person do the exact same thing, creating a (self-)promotional article about the same thoroughly non-notable individual, only a week after the latest AfD ended, almost made me lose my temper... ] ] 19:00, 12 October 2013 (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)


== Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block. ==
::Well, sock or not, I've indeffed ]. There's been nothing but disruption from the account. ] &#124; ] 19:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC).


See ].
==Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us==
This user created an undoubtedly spammy page, and deleting it was justifiable. However, they were also issued an indef hard block tagged as {{tl|uw-spamublock}} by ]. There is no username violation, therefore this is a bad block. While I understand asking some questions, trying to educate a user as to why their deleted content was not appropriate, I don't understand why multiple admins, specifically ] and ] did not simply undo the obviously bad block.


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


Just to be clear, I've already undone the block, this is more about admins holding each other accountable and being willing to reverse obviously wrong decisions where a user is blocked without justification. ] ] 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I am proposing that we ban any edits made by or on behalf of the firm which runs wikiexperts.us , and any editor who is paid, compensated in other means than money, employed, or otherwise encouraged to edit on behalf of this firm or its clients. This will also apply to any companies which may be reasonably construed as related to this one, such as spinoffs, parent/child companies, renamed companies, new management, or other changes of that sort.


: You have unilaterally undone the block. You could have waited for Jimfbleak to consent to the unblock. A block for advertising or promotion would have been legitimate. ] (]) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
This company's contemptuous attitude toward our ] guidelines may be found at their site above, as well as at their comments on a Signpost article here: , and in their statement on the CREWE Facebook page here: . They note in their statement that several CREWE volunteers, not exactly harsh opponents of any COI editing, stated their approach is unethical and unacceptable.
::The block reasoning was manifestly invalid, and we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page. ] ] 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Hi there! As was mentioned below, I am a fairly new administrator (September) and am still learning the ropes. I often try to be kind and see the best in editors when they've been blocked. In the month or so I've been helping out with unblocks, I haven't seen your name around. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you! ] (]) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, I actually just changed my name and my sig, but also I've been more active at AFD, and on the other end of the blocking process at ]. I do think it is a shame that so few admins work unblock requests, when it is only a few people, their opinions become ''de facto'' policy, which isn't good. I do know you are a fairly new admin, as I was one of the first dozen supporters at your RFA, under my then-username ]. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't like what I see here.
::::What concerns me is that you don't seem to have questioned the username violation aspect of this block at all. You could see the deleted page, and could see that it had no connection to the username, and that the name is clearly a common first name with some numbers around it. Being able to see and correct obvious administrative errors is part of the job, in particular when reviewing unblock requests from brand-new users. ] ] 03:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::@], let's say she had, and she reversed the block instead of asking about the connection to the company. When that editor then recreates their spam page and is indeffed as an advertising-only account, and an irritated admin swings by her talk page to chew her out, are you going to stick up for her? -- ] (]) 04:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for asking. Yes I would. However, you've misrepresented what happened. Again I will assume it is an simple mistake, but {{tq|asking about the connection to the company}} is not what she did, she ignored that aspect entirely. It was 331dot who finally raised a question about it. ] ] 04:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What? {{tq|Hello there! Can you tell me why you were interested in creating the Tripleye article? Do you have any connections with Tripleye?}} How is this not asking about the connection to the company? -- ] (]) 06:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok, My bad, I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about asking how the username relates to the company, which as far as anyone can tell it does not. ] ] 06:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::No indeed. What I'm saying is that, if Significa liberdade ''had'' unblocked without first determining whether the editor had a COI and educating them on what that would mean for their editing on Misplaced Pages, chances are very high that the editor would return to the same behaviour - creating AI-scented promotional articles. If that happened, someone would again CSD them, and I expect they would be blocked ''again'' (this time with more accurate rationale). Maybe after a few more warnings, maybe not. Probably some flak for SL, either as a direct "wtf are you doing, that editor had an obvious COI" talk page message, or a passive-aggressive swipe at her in an edit summary or block rationale or something. This would be a worse outcome in every way than taking the time to check in with the blocking admin and figure out whether the editor has a COI or not before unblocking. -- ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ah I'd no idea you'd changed your name. ] (]) 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


:So, it wasn't even a posted article, but just a sandbox? Why couldn't the editor have had it pointed out to them that there needed to be improvements to fix the issues? I also don't agree with the whole "the admin who did a thing had to show up and agree or comment before you can do anything" nonsense. This entire thing seems overbearing, ] and just poor admin conduct altogether. ]]<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The company claims that they will act ethically and that it respects Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines with the exception of COI. We should put to the test whether they will respect our policy on bans by refraining from editing once banned from doing so, as paid editing without full COI disclosure is inherently unethical. The ban should be set so that it can be lifted at once if the company agrees all of its representatives will fully and publicly disclose COI/paid editing and otherwise fully adhere to the guidelines of ] in the future, and contingent that they in fact do so in all future cases.
::@], that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: ] and ]. -- ] (]) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The problem with said policy being the text {{tq|are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators}}, as we can see from the above case and in many other cases (GreenLipstickLesbian has an example list below). There really is not a reason to '''presume''' that admins carefully consider their actions, personally. Particularly when that consideration is not showcased from an action in the first place. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:I left a note explaining our rules for new articles about companies. That’s usually a good first step when a new editor writes a promotional article.
:I can no longer see deleted contributions but all I see mentioned on 82James82’s talk page is a deleted sandbox. My understanding is that we are more tolerant of subpar material in sandboxes than article space. —<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::That is my understanding as well. It wasn't submitted to AFC or anything, just a sandbox, and if it had been submitted at AFC they would've rejected it, not blocked the user. This was the users's first edit, and they got an instant no-warning indef hard block, and when they appealed they got an interrogation session instead of a reversal of the unjustified block. ] ] 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:The ideal admin, in my mind, considers the protection of new editors to be one of their highest duties. They should ] to prevent or undo blocks. An admin who leans toward blocking without warning, or leans toward refusing unblocks when the editor expresses good faith, is more dangerous than a thousand vandals. ] (]) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Good deletion by JFB, bad block by JFB, and good unblock by <s>JSS</s> Beeb. '''But''' after the unblock, there no attempt at all to discuss this with JFB, SL, or 331 before coming here. Couldn't we try that first? Shouldn't we? ] (]) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think we need to have more public discussions about the community's expectation with regard to the treatment of new users. I know you have concerns that the intent of such discussions is to escalate matters, but my intent is the opposite. The two recent recalls happened because the admin corps did not effectively hold colleagues accountable. If we establish a public consensus here that clarifies that that is something we do want from admins, that should decrease the chances of further ugly recall proceedings. ] ] 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::My user talk is hardly not public. ] (]) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. ]] 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:(non-admin nosy parker comment) Significa Liberdade is one of our newest admins, so I think it's completely understandable that she would be nervous about going against two long-standing administrators. I think, @], discussing this with her first would have been a good idea.
:331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined. They do demonstrate a pattern of finding reasons not to overturn suboptimal blocks, and that's a pattern you should maybe think about changing. I know you made each of these declines in good faith, and you accepted that they other administrators had made them in good faith. And I didn't go hunting for these- these were already on my radar for different reasons, and I made a note of them. Sorry for the dates being all out of place.
:* This user was indeffed for "disruptive editing", because on their twentieth edit they added "]" to a plant that grew in south east Europe. (But was their twentieth edit and they'd never been told about redlinked categories before- just welcomed with a 4im vandalism warning for adding ] to an American surname article. No, I'm not kidding). In their unblock request, they said {{tq|I am new to Misplaced Pages and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.}}. 331dot declined the request, saying {{tq|Once you have gained a better understanding of policies, and have an edit you wish to make, please request unblock at that time}}.
:* This sock block was overturned by @] (with the rationale {{tq|This block is clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts}}), but 331dot had declined the initial unblock request using the justification {{tq|You used one account to comment on the talk page of the other, this makes it seem like you are multiple peopleI see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}}. (For clarification, the user never hid the fact they used two accounts. I don't see any ], neither did JBW, so I don't know how 331dot did).
:* This user was no-warning indeffed as NOTHERE due to their edits to the common.js/monobook.css page, and because the blocking admin seemingly did not notice the fact that the account also made several minor grammatical corrections to mainspace articles, had fixed formatting errors, and added cleanup tags. 331dot declined their unblock, saying {{tq| This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia.}} (What vandalism or disruptive editing?)
:* This user was no-warning indeffed for making tables in a wikiproject. (No, I'm not kidding). A more experienced editor confirmed that they'd asked the other editor to assist in projectspace. 331dot declined to unblock them, saying {{tq|It's not at all obvious to me that's why you are here.}}. No, I don't get all the Wikiproject people either, but the community consensus says that yes, those editors are ].
:TL;DR: {{tq|I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block}} is not a good attitude towards unblocks. We <em>want</em> editors to come back, and learn from their mistakes. We don't demand perfection. ] (]) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yikes! <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::The decline reason for Pbnjb1, with Yamla ''enforcing'' said provision no less, seems shamelessly punitive. Only unblocking when they say they have an edit to make? Just wow.... &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::''That'' block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- ] (]) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I will also point out their unblock denial at ], where a new editor who makes what appear to be respectful inquiries is accused of ] (frankly, I don't think they're POV pushing so much as just being polite, which we should encourage) and blocked for sockpuppetry with no further explanation of any sockpuppetry at all, and with a CU stating there is no evidence at all. That editor, by the way, still has not been unblocked, despite being willing to discuss concerns civilly with other editors and with administrators and neither has ] (the 4th example listed). ] <sup>(]) </sup> 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::: To be fair, there are only two options with that user - (a) they ''are'' a sock/troll/LTA, and (b) they are someone who is familiar with Misplaced Pages, perhaps editing as an IP, who made the spectacularly bad decision to create an account and head straight for ANI to vote for banning Fram (and you would have thought in that situation they would have ''known'' it would look suspicious). In that context, the CU data being negative may not be the positive thing it might look like, as if they are the former they probably ''would'' know how to avoid CU issues. Yes, we should AGF, but I can see why people didn't in that case. The other cases may be more problematic, though. ] 09:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: How can you see why people didn't? There is no "obvious evidence to the contrary" unless I'm missing something, the evidence presented is entirely circumstantial and non-obvious. ] (]) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: {{u|Horse Eye&#39;s Back}} You wouldn't be even ''slightly'' suspicious of a brand new editor that dived into an ANI block discussion with one of their first few edits? I would. ] 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: The guideline isn't slightly suspicious its obvious evidence. As a non-admin I would also have to temper any suspicion I had with being found liable for biting a newcomer, hence even when I'm almost entirely certain I still have to be open and respectful (and to just walk away when I can't actually prove anything). I do think that we tend to be pretty harsh with newcomers... If they're not good editors we ding them for being incompetent net negatives and if they're good we start calling them puppets. With all honesty I can say that I don't envy you admins though, the inherent conflict between being swift and severe with socks and AGF, BITE, etc is one of the great questions we face as a community. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::: No, which is why I didn't block them (I saw the edit when it was made). Looking at their previous few edits - using @ in their first edit, spelling lead as "lede", diving straight into AMPOL, that ''is'' a judgment call someone had to make. ] 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] hold up, surely spelling lead as "lede" is evidence that they ''aren't'' a long-time wikipedian? We spell it "lead". It's American journalists who spell it "lede". -- ] (]) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I see most editors refer to "lede" not "lead", which while I can't stand the terminology personally is well documented as a concept per ]. It is therefore not indication of an editors' experience, ever. ] (]) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The linked page says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and seems to overall document that we use lead not lede. ] (]) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::People using "lede" on Misplaced Pages is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I see plenty of long-standing editors use it, so I also don't take it as indicative of anything nefarious. &#8213;] <sub>]</sub> 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::@] agreed, I hate it. ] ] 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think there's probably a conversation about how unblocks are handled that is worth having, but I'm sure having trouble getting fired up about this unblock in particular. An editor makes a blatantly promotional LLM-generated page, which is deleted; once they're blocked, two admins politely ask about the editor's possible connection to the company. It looks to me like it was headed for an unblock. No one's been rude or made threats, including the editors who dropped templated notices earlier. This looks better to me than ''most'' interactions I see between newcomers writing promo and experienced editors. -- ] (]) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin}}
<pre>
== Tripleye ==
Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules.
The company equips engineering teams with the tools needed to enable fully autonomous vehicles or specific autonomous functionalities. Its camera-based approach, rather than relying on LiDAR, delivers unmatched visual detail, scalability, affordability, and versatility.
By leveraging advanced computer vision and AI technologies, Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems tailored to their unique operational demands. The company’s patented technology, developed by an experienced team with a history of groundbreaking research and innovation, outperforms other solutions on the market.
Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City.
== History ==
Tripleye’s origins trace back to early work by Jens Schick and David Wegner as far back as 2013. Jens Schick, a pioneer in autonomous vehicle technology, built the first autonomous car at Daimler in 1994 as part of a groundbreaking project called ‘Prometheus.’ This was the first-ever autonomous vehicle, predating the 2004 DARPA challenge by a decade and marking Europe’s leading role in AV innovation.
After Daimler, Jens joined Bosch to establish its vision group from scratch and later launched Myestro Interactive, a research company focused on autonomous vehicle sensing technologies. In 2019, Jens met Francois Dubuisson, a seasoned entrepreneur with extensive experience in building startups. Recognising the transformative potential of Jens’ innovations, Francois joined forces with him to start a new venture, and Tripleye was born.
== Technology ==
Tripleye’s technology is built on a unique camera-based approach that offers unmatched visual detail, scalability, and cost efficiency compared to traditional LiDAR systems. By combining advanced computer vision and AI-driven analytics, Tripleye enables the development of fully autonomous systems and customised functionalities tailored to diverse industry needs.
With a robust foundation of patented innovations and decades of expertise, the company delivers hardware and software modules designed to outperform market competitors. This technology is ideal for industries requiring precise, adaptable, and scalable solutions.
== Impact ==
Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including:
* Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions.
* Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups.
These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.
== References ==
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech)
* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024)
* (https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)
</pre>
{{cob}}
:One thing worth all of us considering, when dealing with potential spammers, is that if someone is using ChatGPT, as James appears to have here, that makes it a lot harder to infer their motivation, for better and for worse. That is to say, someone could be a completely inept spammer using ChatGPT to masquerade as a moderately ] spammer, <em>or</em> could be a good-faith editor who's made the foolish decision to rely on ChatGPT and has inadvertently used a spammy tone as a result. In this case, the deletion was definitely within reason under ], but it's a good illustration of why blocking on the first offense of spam is usually overkill, unless it's like blatant link-spamming ("for the best online slots click " etc.).{{pb}}Jimfbleak, I'm wondering if you maybe have some script misconfigured, or if there's a misunderstanding on policy here, as pertains to username blocks? I noticed ] yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{tl|uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as ''Onüç Kahraman'' is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


:Looks like they were using ], a script I also use. It is somewhat easy to select the wrong drop downs, or to use the default selections on autopilot. ] (]) 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Note that this should '''not''' be considered or turn into a referendum on all paid or COI editing. Those PR persons or corporate representatives who respect our site guidelines and engage according to them are not at issue here. What is at hand and must be dealt with is a company which has explicitly stated that it will not follow those guidelines and in fact considers it "unethical" to do so. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - a firm which considers it "unethical" to adhere to the guidelines of a private site regarding conduct on that private site can reasonably be seen as having a really strange concept of ethics. ] (]) 20:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*I'd support this if there was a way of identifying these people immediately, but without a a firm grasp of who is editing in spite of COI and who is not, how are we going to enforce this? Regards, — ] ] 20:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
**I realize the difficulty in enforcing this, and I'm under no illusion that we can do so perfectly if they choose to defy it. I'm proposing it for a few reasons. The first is to simply say, as a community, that we find this type of conduct unacceptable. The second is that it would allow us to act on any discovered instances without any uncertainty. The third is that since we are aware of the identity of a company representative and can notify them of the ban, they would likely be required to notify their clients that they are not allowed to actually edit Misplaced Pages, and must do so in defiance of site requirements. That could cause some difficulty for them in doing such business. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*I am wondering if we are taking the wrong approach to this. If we try and police/ban these editors they will find ways around it. What about looking at a policy to manage these people and help integrate their service into our community. If we know who they are we can better judge their edits and allow the community I scrutinize their work.] (]) 21:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
**The big man what's in charge has explicitly said he is not interested in following COI procedure and that he considers doing so (i.e. following it) unethical. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
***And if it becomes known to prospective clients that this firm has explicitly said it intends to violate the rules here, it might cause prospective clients to wonder whether they want to be, potentially, linked to a firm which engages in extremely dubious behavior, and might potentially cause the firm to revise their procedures. Most firms won't want that sort of negative publicity. Mrfrobinson might have a point about maybe, somehow, creating a location where PR people can announce datadumps of RS material which independent editors could then use for developing articles here, and I wouldn't mind setting up some way to allow that, but that is a separate matter. ] (]) 21:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''', after the comments made in reply to the signpost article, it's clear that they are ], have no interest in reforming to do so, and belive that avoiding/flaunting Misplaced Pages policy is "ethical" and following it "unethical". - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 21:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this measure simply on the basis of the representative's posturing and messages. It all feels rather "Methinks he doth protest too much". This assumes, of course, that the gentleman in the CREWE group does represent the firm. Had those pronouncements not been made I would have expressed the opposite view. I believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', but he could not resist having a go, and thus, in my view, lost his own case. ] ] 21:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - self-declared outlaws who pretend to a "right" to violate our terms and conditions for profit. --] &#x007C; ] 21:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
**{{User|Orangemike}}, is doing something "for profit" a bad thing? Of course it could create a bias, but all edits are made by biased editors (there is no such thing as an unbiased editor). What matters is whether the ''content'' is NPOV (and compliant with our other polices and guidelines). No? --]2] 21:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
***Uh, yes, it is, considering that there is a more or less obvious bias for a firm to get paid, and that is a bias only for-profit editors would have. It is almost a presupposition that companies will be extremely unlikely to offer any sort of bonus, or repeat business, or renewed contract, if the results of the first term are unacceptable to them, and that would reasonably include if the firm created an article which is less laudatory than the client would want. Yes, all of us have bias, but only for profit-editors also have a corporate bottom line to worry about, and there is no really good reason to allow that additional difficulty a factor, nor, honestly, can I really see why a company would really want to face that problem, if they were in fact ethical. ] (]) 22:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', other than "they get paid and that upsets me" what exactly is the reason for the ban? Seriously, everyone shut up about people getting paid to edit, as long as they follow our policies on NPOV, OR, RS etc etc and their edits are not vandalism, leave them alone. Paid editing itself is not a reason to ban. I'm sick of this crap being talked about everywhere constantly on Jimbo's page and every where else that someone can stick it in, it's getting disruptive. If their particular edits don't follow our policies and guidelines then there are procedures and policies to deal with those editors as it happens, because '''any''' editor would get in trouble for those things. To single out those that get paid is wrong. You don't think it's fair? Find someone to pay you.] (]) 21:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
::Read the proposal carefully, please. ~~ ] (]) 00:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. First, their argument supporting keeping their clients anonymous is well taken. In theory, those clients could create anonymous accounts and edit WP directly. They are simply hiring an agent to do that.<p>Second, what matters much, much, much more than WHO is editing, or WHY they are editing, is WHAT (content) they are editing. As long as the WHAT is consistent with our policies and guidelines, why does it matter WHO made the edits, or WHY they made them?<p>Third, this is practically impossible to enforce, and and any efforts to investigate and enforce per this proposal is bound to be more detrimental to WP than the supposed problem itself.<p>Finally, I just read ] for the first time and I find it to be ridiculous. The emphasis on WHO and WHY rather than on WHAT is absurd. A COI ''could'' lead to bad and inappropriate edits. But everyone edits with a bias. The edits of anyone editing with a COI should be given the same scrutiny as any other edits, with an eye towards compliance with NPOV, Notability, basis in reliable source, etc. I don't think ] improves WP - to the contrary. It's probably against broad consensus, but I, for one, call ] with respect to ]. The emphasis there is inherently totally wrong, and, I believe, harmful to WP. --]2] 21:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' ban. The refusal to declare their COI is problematic for many reasons. These include that any account taking a pro-corporate stance is now often assumed to be a paid advocate, and this has led to a lot of bad feeling on various articles, with editors at each others' throats even more than usual. The best thing PR companies can do for Misplaced Pages (apart from staying away from it) is to engage ethically so that their presence here doesn't cause the atmosphere to deteriorate for everyone else. The way to do that is to declare their COI and stick to the talk pages, per the ] section of the COI guideline. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
**{{User|SlimVirgin}}, what about deleting ]? Wouldn't that resolve the problem as well? Seriously. I see that ] can create "a lot of bad feeling on various articles, with editors at each others' throats even more than usual." Does ] do anything else? Does it do any ''good'' for Misplaced Pages? Like what? A better place to discuss this is probably at ]. Thanks. --]2] 21:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Hi B2C, what causes the bad feeling is the knowledge that some PR companies don't respect the COI guideline, so editors are constantly (often unfairly) suspicious of people who arrive with pro-corporate positions. The best way PR companies can help us avoid that kind of damage is to behave ethically: declare their COI, stick to talk pages, not try to ghostwrite content, make sure they don't overwhelm editors with requests, respect our policies, and provide independent sourcing for any suggestions they make.<p>So no, the way forward is not to delete the only guideline that, for all its inadequacies, is the only thing standing between Misplaced Pages and wall-to-wall paid advocacy. :) ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''', in line with the existing ban on the similar business a.k.a. ]. We may not have discovered this one's sock-farm yet, but I'm sure it's out there. ] (]) 22:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. WP:COI is indeed ridiculous and ought to marked historical. ] ] 22:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
**Take it to WP:VPP, then. ] (]) 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
**:Why should I take the trouble? ] ] 22:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Given that he admits he uses multiple undeclared sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny, I'm not sure why this is even a question. I believe 100% we need a more functional system to deal with PR type editing than we currently have, but we don't need to endorse sockpuppetry in the process. ] (]) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Blatantly disclosed misbehavior such as this muse be met with concerted action, or we leave ourselves open to all kinds of mischief. ] (]) 22:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support with the caveat''' that we need to be very careful about only banning those who are correctly identified. I think one of the newest gambits of tendentious editing is to accuse those editors with whom one disagrees in a content dispute of being COI editors, simply to gain the upper hand in the content dispute. But I certainly think that the recent SPI mega-case is an appalling assault on what Misplaced Pages stands for, and I support standing up against it. --] (]) 22:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as a deliberately punitive measure, ''pour encourager les autres''. --] (]) 22:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*:Encourage them to do what? ] ] 22:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*::To not act like these people. --] (]) 23:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Given that this company has been using dozens of sockpuppet accounts and IP-hopping unregistered accounts to evade accountability, this is a no-brainer: they're plainly not here to develop neutral articles through collaboration-based editing. I'm all for mass deleting the articles which they created to send a message, and this should be uncontroversial for the articles in which no other editors have made significant contributions per ]. ] (]) 23:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Alanscottwalker, Beyond My Ken and others. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a hobby, not a job. While it should come as no surprise that there are a few paid editors, we shouldn't ever encourage it. It might be necessary if this needs to be written in stone to reopen the effort to formally make ] against policy.--] 23:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*:Who has ever said that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a hobby? ] ] 23:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*::Misplaced Pages is not a hobby... unless you choose to see it that way. It is a public tool that is open for most people to use and keep current. ] (]) 23:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::What was I supposed to call it? I don't and won't accept money to edit...I do it for free in my spare time when and if I want. That seems to fall into a definition of ''hobby'' to me.--] 23:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Reluctantly. I have worked with several declared COI or paid editors, and generally found it a positive experience. Nor have the subjects of those topics gotten the kind of bashing this company's spokesman claims to fear. If some of the points maind in the signpost respone had been made at an RFC to amend or delete ] they might have gotten some traction. But to declare willingness to abide by all the rules except the ones you dislike does not show good ethics in my view, and given the socking history here, I see no reason to trust these editors. ] ] 23:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. At the moment, they aren't even acting against the guidelines. The ] strongly discourages paid advocacy, but doesn't ban it. Even if they were acting in opposition, they would, at most, be acting against a behavioural guideline, not a policy. First, let's fix that - instead of strongly discouraging paid advocacy, let's make it a policy that all people with a financial conflict of interest must declare their COI, and block accounts which do not. Then we can talk about banning wikiexperts.us if they violate the policy. - ] (]) 23:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - per Alanscottwalker and multiple comments above - using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, means to continue. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This is not a matter of WP:COI guidelines. by chairman of the company, ] (if I understand correctly) looks to me as a declaration of war on this site by openly defying our rules. If this proposal passes, we should delete two pages: ] and ]. I am not sure you realize who this man really is: his BLP page does ''not'' explain where and how his initial capital came from. ] (]) 23:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
*:So, you accuse him of a "declaration of war" and then you do the same by saying the article about him should be deleted because he doesn't play by our !rules... um, either his article does not deserve to be here already or it does, how he feels about Misplaced Pages or what he does to or on Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with the article about him. Ridiculous comment and clearly a !vote with no merit, remember this is not a democracy of who has the most !votes, it is about who brings the best facts of argument.] (]) 00:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Then let me clarify. If a wikipedia user openly tells that he is not going to follow our basic rules and actually does it, he would deserve be banned. Now, imagine this is not just an ordinary user but a head of a PR company who makes their mission to undermine integrity of Misplaced Pages, and that is what he tells . That is what I call a "declaration of war. As about deleting these pages, OK, let's wait if this community decision passes. ] (]) 00:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Whoa up there! We have articles here on every tinpot dictator and mass murderer on the planet; just because we stop him spamming, doesn't justify deleting articles about him or his company, if they meet ] and ] respectively. --] &#x007C; ] 00:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::Point here is not that he is a "bad guy" (this is not a reason for deletion), but his company which uses Misplaced Pages for advertisement. If these articles were created and developed by banned users for the purpose of advertisement (one of them was blocked long time ago ), then edits by banned users can theoretically be removed by anyone. I saw his BLP page and more or less familiar with his story. Creating a neutral biography in this case is very difficult because he made a lot of PR effort and spend a lot of money to create a favorable publicity for himself in external sources/publications that ought be used in his BLP article. Saying that, I know that his company is not the worst player who is working to subvert wikipedia. ] (]) 03:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as their actions have conclusively demonstrated that their goals are incompatible with Misplaced Pages's, and they have no intention to change them. Remember that this is not a general referendum on COI editing, this is a discussion of the individual entity ''wikiexperts.us''. It's possible that another company might do COI editing in a way that is compatible with Misplaced Pages's goals; this isn't the case with wikiexperts.us. It does seem that our approach to COI editing as stated at ] doesn't exactly exclude it, but there's no reason to shoot ourselves in the foot on principle with wikiexperts.us until we fix it. <code>]]</code> 00:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Per Nick-D and others. Alex and WikiExperts have attitudes that are contrary to what Misplaced Pages is about. ] (]) 00:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' This is a sensible cause of action to take, it will give admins extra help in dealing with the fallout of edits by this company. WP's reputation relies upon it's ] policy any paid for editing that puts a dent in that reputation and thus is prejudicial to the projects long term goals and we need to act to prevent that. <font face="Lucida Sans">''']&nbsp;]'''<sup style="margin-left:-4ex">]</sup></font> 00:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per many above. NPOV is far, ''far'' more important than a paid PR firm's desire to control content in their clients' interests. The fact that this firm intends to mask COIs, thus actively hampering the project's ability to enforce this, is not acceptable. ]] 00:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. It is not sensible to ban an editor (or group of editors) without first presenting diffs showing bad editing. If the WikiExperts are so bad, their edits will stand out, and there will be a trail of problems behind them. Surely a few diffs could be provided. If the WikiExperts are so good at what they do that we can't detect them, nor come up with any diffs, we are placing a symbolic ban that we cannot enforce. We should not help them gain business by giving them ]. Do please consider restarting this discussion once you've found diffs. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::I don't think we should state that it's okay to violate ] just because we've been unable to prove the person has been making bad edits (which cannot be done precisely because they are violating ].) Will it have a huge effect on their business? Probably not, but there's no reason to let Alex contribute to discussions onwiki. ] (]) 00:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::The information at ] isn't enough? <code>]]</code> 00:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::This isn't a discussion to ban Morning277 and any meat or sock puppets. If the discussion started that way, I'd support it. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::::And anyway, they are ]. ] 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::So why are we here? Block any socks of Morning277 and call it a day. Why are we here? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::Morning277 and MooshiePorkFace are a different spamhaus (Wiki-PR). ] 03:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The clearest infringements of policy of this firm is in regards to ]. The infringements of this policy have been systematic and malicious in the intent to avoid consensus and undermine ], a core policy. An encyclopedia-wide ban for the firm is an obvious and legitimate solution. Meat puppetry is covered by the policy. All the accounts and IPs associated controlled by this organization should be banned as sock puppets or meat puppets. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 00:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' If I'm correctly understanding the people who oppose this proposed ban, they're saying that we need evidence of misbehavior. The diff and the Facebook link provided by Seraphimblade demonstrate that this company (1) is actively trying to influence content here on Misplaced Pages, (2) plans to do its best to circumvent standards that we apply to everyone and everything, and (3) openly rejects and cannot be convinced to follow those standards. How is that not sufficient evidence that these people should not be members of the community? Banning them will mean that we can actively delete anything that they write, without regard to whether the pages in question look like spam; I am actively an opponent of deleting useful content written by banned editors, but this is different, because if we identify anything to which they've contributed without removing it, we help them by allowing them to demonstrate what they've been able to do. We have the G5 speedy deletion criterion, the 3RR exception for reverting banned editors, and other ways of getting rid of things added by banned editors; we need to be able to use all of them. On top of that, (1) During the discussion at the ], someone suggested that the US Government's ] be notified because this company's perhaps engaging in an illegal kind of advertising. Perhaps banning them would enhance the legal issues if they keep on going. (2) We need to be careful to mark pages that they've edited: put the {{tl|COI}} template on any such articles, and be sure to delete new articles with the G12 template, so they'll be marked as blatant spam instead of under G5, since these creations are done essentially for the company's own purposes. Finally, perhaps we can ask admins to log pages on which we've caught wikiexperts editing, and ask someone with a WMF email address to contact these companies, letting them know that someone looking for them on Misplaced Pages will now notice that the page is marked as a COI problem or that it has been deleted as spam. ] (]) 01:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:* Nyttend, I don't believe that you are correctly understanding the people who oppose this proposed ban. We are not saying that we need evidence of misbehavior. We are saying that, given a situation where there is clear evidence of misbehavior '''and''' where the misbehaving editor is expressing an unpopular opinion such as "the rules should be changed so that I am allowed to misbehave", you should support a ban based upon the bad behavior, but oppose a ban based upon expressing the unpopular opinion. You should not say "I support the proposal because there is also bad behavior" but instead should say "I oppose the proposal as written -- we do not ban based upon expressing unpopular opinions -- but would support a ban based upon evidence of misbehavior." It is a subtle distinction, but an important one, because it goes to the heart of what Misplaced Pages is and stands for. --] (]) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' WikiExperts has openly declared war on Misplaced Pages, e.g. "Misplaced Pages IS a marketing tool, the most important one in online visibility, with most companies using PR pros to improve their profiles. We have helped hundreds of clients." ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 00:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


:: Could you provide some links to show infringements of policy? This thread is turning into torches and pitchforks. Where is the evidence? I see an appeal to emotion, a very successful one, but that's not the way we should do things. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC) *I was prepared to ask the blocking admin to unblock but I wanted the user to show that they knew their text was promotional. I didn't see a username issue, but I'm not perfect so I was asking Jimfbleak what it was, if anything. ] (]) 22:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:You've been working around username issues a long time, and doing a lot of good work. I think you have the necessary experience and judgement to see that there was not a blatant violation here. I really feel like we're falling down in our treatment of new users who aren't behaving maliciously but just don't understand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. I assure you I'm not trying to have anyone burned at the stake here, I just think we need to address these issues and be more willing to undo obviously incorrect actions without waiting as long as it takes for the admin who made the error to explain themselves. ] ] 23:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::He explicitly admits to violating ] on the most recent signpost's talk page. ] (]) 00:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*::I get it, but sometimes I like to make sure that I haven't missed something. ] (]) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::And where is our policies is an editor not allowed to explicitly admit to violating ], as opposed to ''actually'' violating ]? You say he did both? I agree. So write up a proposal for a ban based upon violating ]. Supporting a ban for explicitly admitting to a violation is wrong. The proposal should based upon an actual violation. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. We do not punish thoughtcrime here. --] (]) 20:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*::I'll repeat something I said in {{slink|User_talk:Tamzin#Administrative_culture}}: {{tq2|I think the root problem here is with ]. It begins <q>Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators.</q> I mean. ''Fucking seriously?'' Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration ]. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block. &nbsp;...{{pb}}So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If another admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' A rather IDONTLIKEIT proposal, given that nowhere on Misplaced Pages is paid editing absolutely banned. If the OP could prove that what they were doing was harmful to the encyclopedia we might get somewhere. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 00:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::I don't think the allowed actions in ] are all that problematic, though I do agree with you about the presumptions in the preamble. You can reverse if the following are met:
:: Agree, I want to see diffs. I want a discussion based on policy and evidence, not emotion. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::# Good cause
::::The reason it's hard to provide diffs proving disruption is entirely because he's violating ] with his socking. If he weren't violating the sockpuppetry rules and we could actually scrutinize his edits, I wouldn't support banning him. But as it is he is breaking ] (which is why there are no diffs of disruptive article space editing,) and saying that we shouldn't ban him just because we can't prove disruptive article space editing is pretty much equivalent to saying it's okay to violate ] as long as you are good at it. ] (]) 00:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::# Careful thought
:::::And how do you propose that we enforce this ban, if we can't even generate a few diffs? Are we going to get a psychic to identify the banned users' accounts? You know what this ban will lead to: lots of false accusations and the resulting disruption. Remember MyWikiBiz? The hunt for Greg Kohs sock puppets and other "enemies" of Misplaced Pages led to a lot of harmful dramas. Please, let's not repeat those mistakes. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::# ''If the admin is '''presently''' available'': consultation. So shoot them a message, and if they don't respond within a reasonably short period of time, proceed anyway
::::::I cannot imagine this proposal leading to the block of any user account other than the one currently commenting on the signpost article since he's good at covering his tracks. I'd be more worried about WikiPR blocks targeting the wrong people, because they are horrible at trying to cover their tracks. But seriously, why should we let this dude comment on the Signpost article? It's not the biggest deal in the world which is why I didn't bring it up myself when I saw him pop his head over, but what possible good is there from not blocking his admitted account? There's no reason ] should not be indeffed on ENWP. ] (]) 01:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::Those three steps are not very restrictive. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: I will take a look at the signpost comments and block him if there's any problem with his edits. We should not block or ban people for merely disagreeing. There has to an action and a problem. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*::::They might not be very restrictive in theory, but they are in practice. It's far easier to get desysopped for a bad unblock than for a bad block. In effect the rule becomes that you need to not just try to talk with the admin, but actually need their permission. That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy. Or to put it more simply: We can't all be Beeblebrox. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Possibly block ] and add him to ], containing already blocked socks (see block log here ). See and if you want unambiguous evidence of sockpuppetry. If WikiExperts contractors or employees want to appeal their block, they should make a request as per ], like every other blocked user.--<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 01:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::::Thank god for Beeblebrox then... We can't have all the admins form a ]... Somebody has to be the "bad brick" for the larger society to function. ] (]) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::What evidence do you have connecting these accounts? How do you know that's not some other troll having a little fun? There's needs to be a thoughtful presentation and discussion of evidence, not a rush to judgment. If there is sock puppetry, please go report it here: ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::::{{tqb|That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy.}}Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to having this become a policy. Of course, there should be some latitude for the blocking admin's discretion, but a block with no ] explanation should be able to be reverted by another admin. ] (] · ]) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Connecting those banned socks? I gave the diffs, and obviously the blocking admin agreed. As to connecting the ], I only said "possibly". Thoughtful presentation and discussion is always a priority, and this discussion now is part of that. When looking at ]'s edits, it is pretty clear, or as many people at SPI say, ]. Also, his contribs admit meatpuppetry explicitly. For example here User:AKonanykhin explicitly says that he is part of an organization which supplies "a growing network of participating wikipedians with paid assignments". That is describing and admitting to unambiguous meat puppetry, at least when combined with the admission here that not announcing the conflict of interest is done to avoid scrutiny. Assigning edits to other people to make edits for a common purpose and trying to avoid scrutiny of this activity is a clear infringement of ], and I think the majority of editors agree with this. I think the editors voting support here are just part of that majority who have the same judgement. It's not a rush to judgement.--<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 08:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*::::::We've had a parallel to this idea in deletion policy (]) for like forever, and the world's stubbornly refused to end. I do worry somewhat about the effect it'd have with ]. —] 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::: All these accounts pre-date the existence of WikiExperts for over a year. ] (]) 18:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::::::As one of the relative newbies around here, I've kind of assumed that the RAAA thing with unblocks is a hangover from the Bad Old Days of wandering cowboy admins who needed rules like this to keep the wheel-warring in check. I don't tend to mind following this gentlemen's agreement, since I value the second look. But it's the admins who make the bad blocks that are also the least likely to be affable about you lifting them. Then we end up with the problem Tamzin's described. -- ] (]) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. This kind of flagrant declaration to violate Misplaced Pages guidelines means these editors have already lost the faith of the community. ] (]) 01:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*It's great to welcome new users and assume good faith, but Misplaced Pages will be neck-deep in spam if junk like the above is not handled firmly. If I had seen it, I would have ground my teeth and moved on because why should I get heaps from people who think there is value in "{{tq|These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.}}" There is more and more of this stuff, and soon people will be able to ask an AI bot to author and post their fluff on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Literally nobody is arguing that the page was acceptable or that the deletion was incorrect. The issue is the subsequent block and making the user wait, blocked, until it was convenient for the blocking admin to respond. If you found yourself blocked for reasons that were manifestly incorrect, would you not expect and hope that reviewing admins would reverse it? ] ] 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::If I had been the user who posted that advert as their first edit, I would know why I had been blocked. ] (]) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::You seem to be entirely missing the point that this was an indef hard block because of the supposed combination of promotional edits ''and'' a promotional username, when there is literally no issue of any kind with the user name. We can AGF that this was simply an misclick, but we shouldn't pretend there is a real issue with the name because of it. ] ] 04:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*FWIW, I try to educate users as to why I have deleted their hard work with ] or ]. For the most part, I prefer to give them the opportunity to mend their ways in the context of ]. ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' It is important to try to facilitate that emergence, though sometimes a block is required to do so.] (]) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::I want to second that ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' (well, perhaps a slightly modified ''Inside every disruptive editor is potentially a constructive editor trying to get out.'') One of the people brought on to talk about wikipedia in a recent ] piece described a vandal to core editor conversion sparked in part by effective and positive engagement on their talk page. ] (]) 02:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I do think we, and I include myself here, have gotten too hardcore about blocking over one or two promo edits, in particular when they aren't even in article space. I'm working on some proposals to address this right now. ] ] 04:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Something that reiterates "we tell new users that their sandbox is for screwing around, don't CSD them for screwing around in it" would be hugely welcome. -- ] (]) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just spent a few minutes chasing my tail looking for anything that makes it clear where the line is, and all I came up with is that you can't have attack content, copyvios, or other types of "not acceptable anywhere, period type of content. I didn't see anything about promotional content in sandboxes. If I've missed it somehow, someone please let me know where it is. ] ] 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tl|Db-spamuser}} covers userpages, which I guess personal sandboxes are a subset of, that's all I could find. ] ] 05:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, there isn't anything clearly explaining where the line is, that's my point. I've seen quite a lot of "good faith" promo editing tagged for G11/U5 in sandboxes, editors blocked for having promo there, etc etc. I'll happily do the promo username+edits blocks or vaporize chatGPT nonsense, but deleting/blocking someone for sandbox edits when the template right in front of their eyes says it's for experimentation is really over-the-top bitey, imo. -- ] (]) 06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe it's time we '''warn''' these users that sandboxes are not a completely safe haven to test whatever they want, because as I see it, the ] did not bring up the reasons why one edits in the sandbox might be deleted (whether from U5 or G11 or sth else). ]<sup>(])</sup> 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Please think about the long-term consequences of a rule saying that anyone can post anything so long as it is in their user space, or marked as "sandbox" or whatever. Will we wait a year to see if an SPA refashions their spam into an FA, then (if not) add a delete request tag, then discuss the deletion request? That won't scale. ] (]) 05:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. ] ] 06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It seems pretty clear to me: it's potentially a gate to letting spam "articles" stick around 'because they're in sandboxes'. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::If a sandbox is ''clearly'' G11, and IMHO we've become overly inclusive of any COI editing as G11, then it should be deleted. But the creator needs to be educated as to ''why.'' And yes, I share the concern about people using Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I know some would leap at any loophole. ] (]) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{yo|Beeblebrox}} Ah, yes. The Ghost of Wheel-Wars Past. Before my time really, but you can still hear the chains rattle after nearly two decades. ] (]) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


::::::::::As {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} correctly surmised, I use Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage script, and I'm aware that it's easy to select the wrong drop down, so I always check. However, it appears that in this case I still managed to fat finger an obviously incorrect rationale, ''mea culpa'', I can only apologise for that. I don't think that the G11 was incorrect, there's no policy that exempts spamming in userspace. I intended to block the account as being likely an UPE, given that their first edit was a full, highly promotional page about a company, and then left it for uninvolved admins to review the block. If asked, I always accept the reviewing admin's decision unless, rarely, they have missed something like socking or previous malpractice. I apologise again for the error I made, although I can't help thinking it could have been sorted out on my talk page rather than through ANI ] - ] 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Per several editors above, it seems hypocritical that they will respect all WP guidelines but COI and have intentions to to declare war on WP. At first glance, it even reminds me of how Jimbo went ballistic over Tony Ahn's PR firm including WP article creation services. --] (]) 01:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::I frankly agree. This didn't need to be brought here. He made a mistake- apparently I made a mistake by asking him to confirm that he made a mistake(even though clicking unblock bring up a clear message '''"Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error'''") okay. We'll do better next time. ] (]) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Declaring that you disagree with our policies and guidelines, and even stating you wont obey them is itself not a reason to ban. Everyone commenting here about "declarations" and "war" and they "don't respect us" and "he doesn't agree with our policies"... you're !votes seriously are illegitimate since they are not based on any policy! You have to back up your !vote with policy instead of, as another editor stated "emotions". Who cares if they don't respect us or have faith in the community? Are you that much of a control freak that we have the idea of a 6 year old "I'll take my ball and go home" because they wont play the game by the !rules we made? Misplaced Pages is what our readers need it to be. Seriously, grow up everyone and just go edit an article and close this shit out, if they break a !rule they will be punished. Until then mind your own business.] (]) 01:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::I realize that's for "accounts you control" but clearly there's some intention here that we need to consult with the blocking admin in general. ] (]) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
** I think the issue is if they have said they will not obey the policy and guidelines when challenged, that's disruption, and that's why we impose blocks and bans as to prevent such. Now, whether we do that in a precautionary manner, that's a different question, but I have seen this used before, so it seems to be valid option. --] (]) 01:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
***Really? That's hearsay. Can we please ask the editor a few questions and let him answer in his own words, instead of jumping to conclusions. This discussion is much too hasty. We need to be more thoughtful. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)\
::::Hearsay? No, that's Masem's opinion of the statement and the guideline/policy just like all of the Users' comments above. -- ] (]) 02:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. ] (]) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. ] (]) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. ] (]) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) ] (]) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::{{reply|331dot}} as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and ''re''blocked them, ''that'' would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. ]'']''] 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. ] (]) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*On a related note, I think we need to sit down with ] and ] and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs ''trying to do volunteer work'' seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*"we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.{{pb}}There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Misplaced Pages for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —] 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I vandalized Misplaced Pages with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Misplaced Pages because some grace was offered to them when'' they'' were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that , because who just ''knows'' wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? ''Very suspicious''.
*:"They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the ''possibility'' to become one. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::There's a difference between vandalizing Misplaced Pages for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point {{u|Cryptic}} refers to). ] (]) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ec}}As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —] 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to ]'s collections of your bad judgement? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. ] (]) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I fail to see how {{tq|"331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined"}} is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged <s>would</s> could be over-pinging. ] (]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::]: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. ] (]) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::@] @]. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. ] (]) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. ] ] 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). ] (]) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- ] (]) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once ] style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would ], rendering my point somewhat moot. ] (]) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::{{tq|I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor}} me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- ] (]) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. ] (]) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*: {{tq| But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so}}. I present {{u|JohnCWiesenthal}} as a counterexample. {{pb}} Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. ] ] 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at {{no redirect|IntelliStar}} which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. ] (]) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; {{tq|Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems}} is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For ''advertising'' of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. ] (]) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at ]. ] ] 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking ===
*'''Support'''. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. ] 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was ], exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. ] (]) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. ] (]) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. ] (]) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. ] (]) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- ] (]) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by ] and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- ] (]) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. ] ] 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. {{tq|I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others.}} -- ] (]) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Or, better, {{tq|My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question.}} -- ] (]) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::@] probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially {{tq|"The specifics of the example isn't the point,..."}}. ] (]) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 ] (]) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here}} - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a ''long'' time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- ] (]) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic <s>]</s> ]. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per ] and remaining ]. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
* I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Misplaced Pages as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. ] (]) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


Looking through 331dot declining unblocks reveals quite a few instances where either 331dot or the blocking admin takes an extremely newbie-unfriendly approach:
* I've just exchanged a few emails with Alex and he seems to have the potential for reasonableness. I think we need to walk back this dispute and try to understand what exactly people are objecting to, and how each side can understand the other's concerns, and how there can be an agreement about what sort of editing (if any) would be allowed. Placing a hasty ban will not prevent harm, and may just drive the activity deeper underground. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*] has now been unblocked by Philknight, but the approach by 331dot was not very helpful or newbie-friendly
::If he is a reasonable guy, he should prove it ''by providing a list of all their accounts'' - now and forever, which of course goes against his comment cited in the beginning of this thread. If all of them can be watched, and he follows his part of the bargain, then outright ban may indeed be unnecessary. ] (]) 04:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*]: no warnings, immediate indef block by ] for a misguided edit (not vandalism, just auto-promo): no idea why a warning wasn't tried first
*], no warning, immediate indef block by ], reasonable unblock request, denied by 331dot. This is the apparently unforgiveable, no warnings needed edit.
*], I can understand their frustration, I don't see the "blatant spam" they were posting, they were posting references with relevant information, but these included commercial websites as well as neutral ones. I don't see any company they tried to promote, no spam text, ... just a helpful editor who hasn't yet given up on editing here despite a way too harsh block by ] and an unhelpful unblock decline by 331dot
*] incorrect sock block, unblocked thanks to PhilKnight, but previous interactions with 331dot, including a declined unblock, were again rather unhelpful, just blindly believing that the block has to be correct


These are all from this month, from spotchecking some of their declined unblocks (a number of other declines were perfectly allright). ] (]) 10:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' As an absurdly broad restriction. Were this simply saying that editors who work for the paid editing firm are banned that would be one thing, but what does "otherwise encouraged to edit on behalf of this firm or its clients" mean? It seems to be worded in such a way that takes this restriction well beyond the firm itself or regular paid editors.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 03:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose''' Guilt by association is simply wrong. What makes it even worse, is that many of the supporters of this admit it will be symbolic anyway, as we can't readily identify who is subject to the proposed ban. So now you banned if your an '''employee, of a client, of the company''' who has never violated ]? Talk about over broad. Act in good faith, follow COI and self identify, but if you work, not even for the company, but a client of the company, you are banned. While we are banning categories of people, lets ban all racists, we can worry about identifying them later. ]] 03:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


:I blocked based on ] combined with promotional edit. Name represents a website that functions to generate income and the user posted a link to the site. Is that kind of block incorrect? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''OPPOSE''' such a broad ban. It's ridiculous to apply a ban to anyone associated to the corp. Let alone, possible to enforce. How about a ban of the '''editors''' and '''management''' of the firms? <span class="nowrap">&mdash;]<sup>''']'''</sup></span> 03:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::Name of website (blog) is name of actual person, DJ Martin Dus. Link they posted was informative and relevant. The reaction to this is not some gentle steering towards "perhaps better a new username" (dubious if that was even necessary) and "please don't post links to your own blog", but an immediate indef block, and a declined unblock with a request for basically a complete plan for their future editing career. Apparently their error was much more heinous than someone posting blatant vandalism, who gets 3 or 4 chances before being blocked, and first gets clear warnings that it will happen. ] (]) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''SUPPORT''' until they change their declared policy and commit to stating their COI and restricting their edits to talk pages. I'm perfectly happy to work with open COI editors. (What this whole issue throws up is the need to improve the skills of our ], ] and ].) --] (] · ] · ]) 03:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::@] it was well within the bounds of policy and reason but the name could be a stage name whuch changes the equation slightly. Ask 100 different admins, you'll get 100 different answers.
::I stand by my block of PaulSem based on the information I had at the time but my threshold for undoing my ''own'' block is essentially a coherent appeal or promise not to repeat the problem action so I've unblocked now I've seen that they appealed. That's not a criticism of 331dot because my standard for reversing ''another'' admin's action is much higher. ] &#124; ] 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you for the unblock, but I really don't see why that editor didn't just warrant some guidance, at worst warnings, for some of the links they included. I may well have missed it, but their latest edit added , which you reverted, after which you blocked. ] (]) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the edit wasn't promotional enough for you to even revert, it probably wasn't blatant enough to call for a block. Or to turn it around, this is like when I see another admin tag all of a user's creations as spam, or vandalism, or even attack pages instead of deleting them themselves; and after I delete the pages and go to deal with the user, I find that the same admin had already blocked. How can you be confident enough to indef a user while still being unsure enough about their content - the ''reason you blocked them'' - that you need confirmation from another admin? —] 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The lack of reversion was an error on my part. However, I do acknowledge that I had only seen the name as the name of a website, and not also as a stage name. I have been slow on reversing the block after seeing the objection raised here, because one of the lessons I learned from a previous block that I posted on this page requesting review, showed that acting too quickly on an objection can create havoc, when the objection —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Itself becomes controversial. (I am on flaky connection right now, sorry for the broken up message). Will unblock, revert edit, and discuss either user. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Cryptic}}, I see things somewhat differently, and I am among the administrators who often block for promotional username/promotional editing and then tag the content, usually G11, for review by another administrator, under the principle that two heads are better than one. In my mind, it is a check on myself to help prevent me from becoming too stringent and if another administrator questions my tag or my block, that helps me adhere to community norms. ] (]) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::So, what, you see a promotional page being made, figure it's bad enough to block the creator, but aren't sure it's worth deleting? What do you do if the deletion's declined? Leave the user blocked, even though what they wrote was acceptable? Unblock? How do you rationalize ''either'' of those outcomes as ok? —] 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Cryptic}}, the answer is clear to me but I will spell it out for you. If another administator disagrees with my assessment that the content in question should be deleted (or that the editor should have been blocked), then that administator and I would have a conversation. That could lead to content being draftified instead of being deleted. It could lead to a hard block being converted to a soft block. It could result in me concluding that I misunderstood and unblocking with an apology. It would not result in me ignoring the situation and leaving a contradictory outcome unresolved. As I said, I believe that two heads are better than one and I do not recall any other admimstrator chastising me with, "you should have deleted that spam yourself!". ] (]) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@]: Why not tag the page for deletion, then warn the user? ] (]) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Significa liberdade}}, because I am an administator and overtly promotional usernames are not permitted and call for a block. And an account with an overtly promotional username combined with creation of overtly promotional content calls for a hard block. I do not engage in friendly negotiations with spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia. ] (]) 03:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::]: Apologies, on a re-read I realized you mentioned username+promo. I thought you were just talking about a new editor creating promotional pages. ] (]) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And Cullen is of course correct by our current policies and practices. That's where I think the problem lies, not with individual admins but with the guidance provided to them, which I have been following for years myself. I do think {{tq|spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia}} is going a bit far in many cases and we need to try warning and education as a tool of first resort, as we do with vandals, instead of jumping straight to a block. I am very willing to delete spam, but I have come to believe that the no-warning blocking is not really productive or fair. ] ] 03:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:The best solution might be the simplest one: we need some new blood dealing with blocks and unblocks. Either admins who work in other areas should pay some attention to this, or new admins with a newbie-advocate philosophy need to be given the tools to work on block appeals. ...any volunteers? ] (]) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not an admin myself, but I'm always happy to help give advice to users making block appeals, and to make sure they're on the right track! ] (] · ]) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] is one of those newbie-advocate types who has taken up this work recently, and I've been on it as well. It needs as much new blood as it can get. It's also really helpful for non-admins who know their way around to help out the ones who have clearly misunderstood something (eg, someone blocked for copyright, a promo editor who needs to agree to abide by paid disclosure, etc). -- ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Happy to help. <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">] <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span></span> 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


Help is surely needed, as the usual suspects just continue in the same vein, e.g. with ]. That editor needed warnings and guidance, not an indef block and and a declined unblock. No idea why was reverted, and while their addition was a promo link, it's hard to find fault with the reasoning from their edit summary. 5 Edits of which 2 were good and 3 promolinks but relevant and understandable = no warnings and indef block? Gee, I wonder why we have such a hard time finding new editors. ] (]) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Just like any other site, following the terms of service is not optional. These guys have indicated that they will actively violate Misplaced Pages policy. That is an option granted to absolutely no one, not even Jimbo. Ban these scumbags until they agree to follow all Misplaced Pages policy, including COI. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 05:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ] - paid editing would destroy the project unless we will do something about it. ] (]) 06:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''', but I agree with Bilby above when he says "let's make it a policy that all people with a financial conflict of interest must declare their COI, and block accounts which do not". Then we have a clear supportable policy for paid editors. They can edit but they must admit they are paid and by whom. --] ] 08:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Strongly oppose: ''' This ban is based purely on speculation. Not one person has come forward with an actual example of an edit that anyone related to WikiExperts has made that egregiously breaks Misplaced Pages’s actual policies. Needless to say, since this ban was proposed, my own Misplaced Pages profile’s talk page has already been vandalized—with a user claiming that despite charges being dropped in a past event, the reason why is to be suspected. This is a very clear personal attack that breaks Misplaced Pages’s Biography of Living People protocols.


Are there deleted edits or something else I can't see here, there's nothing further in the filter log? ] makes two edits on the 11th, gets warned (okay), makes no further edits, and gets blocked indef a full week later on the 18th by ]. Why??? ] (]) 18:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I invite anyone to look at my personal user profile here, which has not made one single edit to article space in the entire time I’ve been on Misplaced Pages. Banning me for editorial breaches would not make sense, as I’ve never edited Misplaced Pages’s articles. As Misplaced Pages administrator ] on the ] Misplaced Pages page so recently pointed out in an edit summary, COI is a guideline on Misplaced Pages, not a protocol. There is no policy that requires a declaration of COI. A ban should only be in place if someone or some entity actually breaks a Misplaced Pages policy repeatedly, which there is absolutely no evidence WikiExperts has ever done. I believe we have never broken a policy, and the evidence appears to support this.


:There are no deleted contributions. — ] (]) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Firms that have actively flaunted Misplaced Pages policies could be considered eligible for a ban, such as Wiki-PR or MyWikiBiz. However, evidence of said flaunting of actual policies must be in place before such a ban can be enacted. My own personal disagreements with the COI Misplaced Pages ''guidelines'', is in no way contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Real discussion on COI issues is beneficial for Misplaced Pages, as there are no firm policies on COI and therefore the only way to form them is through a firm policy and the discussions that lead to it. Instead of trying to ignore my ideas and force a community ban on a company that has never been proven to flaunt Misplaced Pages rules, perhaps a formal discussion on creating an actual paid editing rules should be completed.
:I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- ] (]) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically {{tq|someone making a living by backlinking a website for a client}}and not just someone who is ignorant of Misplaced Pages policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Misplaced Pages's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. ] ] 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. ] (]) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. ] (] · ]) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ] (]) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. ] (] · ]) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check ''every subsequent edit'' manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? ] (]) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. ] (] · ]) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@], I think that's exactly the sort of thing @] is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he ''shouldn't'' be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- ] (]) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. ] (] · ]) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. ] &#124; ] 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::{{ping|Novem Linguae}} as the first technically minded admin I thought of, is this even within the realms of feasibility? ] (]) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.
*::::::::{{tq|Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful}}. A user script could be written that runs itself on pages such as recent changes, the watchlist, and article histories, and highlights edits by users that have been added to a wiki page containing a list of users to highlight. Or highlights edits by users who have been unblocked within the last month. So yeah, that's technically possible. ] is a good place to request user scripts if y'all decide to go that route. –] <small>(])</small> 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::{{tqb|{{tq|watchlist this user's edits}}. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to ] concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.}}Yep, which is why I thought limiting its availability to admins watchlisting users they personally unblocked could mitigate the ] risks. Even more if it's limited to unblocks from the last, say, 30 days (although giving a specific timeframe might be an incentive for these editors to just wait it out, so a specific number of edits that will show up on the watchlist might be better).{{pb}}For your second point, a script could very much be feasible. I think there's a way to retrieve a user's logs by script to check the date of their last unblock, and from there it's just like an admin/etc. highlighter script. I might do it actually, if I find the time for it (and everyone, feel free to remind me if it looks like I'm forgetting!) ] (] · ]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::For reference, see ]. ] (]) 06:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


====Examples: HJ Mitchell====
Let me clarify something. I believe that COI guidelines on Misplaced Pages are ineffectual and unfair, but I am not stating, nor have I ever stated, that we have ever edited with a conflict of interest. We edit with pure neutrality and only for very notable individuals or organizations. COI guidelines state that it is very hard to edit without a bias, and we do that very hard job. The COI guidelines do not state that it is impossible to edit without bias, and rightfully so. We do it.
{{ping|HJ Mitchell}}, per ], can you please explain why you blocked ] despite there being no edits between the warning they received for their first two edits, and your block a week later? ] (]) 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:HJMitchell addresses some thinking behind the block in ]. Best, ] (]) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The nominator has claimed WikiExperts is an “unethical” company, but can provide absolutely no evidence that something unethical has taken place or that a single Misplaced Pages policy has ever been broken by WikiExperts. A breach of normative ethics is also different than an actual breach of policy, which has not happened. If my previous remarks have insulted people here on Misplaced Pages, I do apologize, as I was simply trying to start a discussion. I would add that these discussions were all had off Misplaced Pages’s pages, unless Signpost is considered a Misplaced Pages page. I would also add that we have spent a lot of time investigating how to best implement the COI guideline into our company model and have done so to the best of our abilities, to ensure only neutral edits are made.


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


*]: none of their edits after their one vandalism warning were reverted, they seemed like a good faith editor, but still you indef blocked them. ] (]) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
User:John Carter wrote “ if it becomes known to prospective clients that this firm has explicitly said it intends to violate the rules here, it might cause prospective clients to wonder whether they want to be, potentially, linked to a firm which engages in extremely dubious behavior, and might potentially cause the firm to revise their procedures. Most firms won't want that sort of negative publicity.” This is administrator has clearly stated that he intends to harm the business of WikiExperts with the tools of Misplaced Pages if he can, without providing any evidence that WikiExperts has broken a single Misplaced Pages rule. This is an abuse of administrative authority.
*:That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. ] &#124; ] 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Except they weren't, after the warning they removed or merged sections ''once'' and then proceeded to add (at first glance acceptable) sources to the same article. They were a good faith editor trying to improve an article, probably making errors along the way. ] (]) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @], could you please have another look at this block? – ] 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@] (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. ] &#124; ] 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Why is this here and not on the user's talk page? If you have a concern with an individual user, as is the case here, you should first try to resolve your issues with the individual user. That's step one of dispute resolution. ] (]) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree. I think this whole section should be closed and discussion moved there.
*: Somehow, I don't think that: ''"But we think our torches and pitchforks will be more effective here"'', is (or should be) a valid reason to skip steps in ] in this case. - and that's about as much AGF as I think I can give in this instance. Regardless of initial intent, this is starting to come across as a ]. The appearance of which would seem to be undermining whatever goals that those concerned may have. - <b>]</b> 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::To those concerned, it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue. That is, in itself, a valid perspective. Class-borne exasperation is not itself collective discrimination or punishment.
*::If you are implying this is shaping up to be a witch hunt, I have yet to see instances of magical thinking or confessions produced under torture. Instead, I see reasonable evidence for users' interrelated, reasonable concerns. Are people on WPO rude? Yes, and I see no bad faith in their incivility here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 20:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Not seen as magical thinking or torture? Welcome to ] : )
*:::And your comments do not address that this should have been - and should be - carried out on the admin's talk page, as ] noted. - <b>]</b> 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Remsense's comment directly addressed that, e.g. {{tqq|it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue}} and {{tqq|interrelated, reasonable concerns}}. ] (]) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Looks at the thread title ("Examples: HJ Mitchell"), and your and their comments. Uh huh, sure. Care to try again? - <b>]</b> 23:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Remsense's comment directly addressed whether this should be carried out on the admin's talk page, by using words such as {{tqq|not ... individualized}} and {{tqq|interrelated}}. ] (]) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


*'''Endorse most blocks; unblock Anushka Sweety Shetty'''. Procedurally, the OP should have discussed on talk with the user directly first; but setting that aside. For the first example, these are obviously low quality spam external links. All blocks are reversible given a block appeal. This is clearly bread and butter admin blocking and within discretion, and helps keep the quality of the encyclopedia high that we use discretion to quickly dispatch obvious troublemakers and spammers. The blocking policy is not a strict legal document, but a set of guidelines. The norms and practices should be followed, but not religiously. This seems like a good example where the logic is sound and where the action can be reversed easily if someone legit gets hit by a block, but it seems to me that this is just promotional spam. As to the second block, the account was evidently a vandalism-only account. We don't require warnings for this, AFAIK. Finally, I do think that Anushka Sweety Shetty was accidentally mis-tagged as vandalism, and should be unblocked unless there's a good reason that I don't understand. However, one mistake is not a big deal and can be easily reversed. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
User:TheBushranger clearly states that his impulse to ban WikiExperts is based off of comments on a Signpost article that disagree with COI guidelines. He adds nothing else to support his argument. How is expressing someone’s own viewpoint on Misplaced Pages guidelines or policies against the spirit of Misplaced Pages to the point that one must be banned?


====Examples: 331dot====
User:OrangeMike calls WikiExperts “outlaws”; what law is being broken and what policy. Either COI guidelines really mean that it is only strongly suggested that COI be declared, or that is false, and COI ''must'' be declared or a user will be banned. It cannot be both.
{{ping|331dot}} per ], can you please explain why you declined the unblock of good faith editor ]? It seems that they needed guidance, not blocking in the first place, and certainly not a declined unblock with a rather unfriendly, unhelpful message. ] (]) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


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


It's difficult to see how other admins deal with unblock requests, as only open requests are easily findable. Looking at the open requests, I see
User:Kevin Gorman has stated something plainly false, by claiming that Alex Konanykhin uses sockpuppets to edit Misplaced Pages. Let me make this clear; my user account nor WikiExperts has ever once used a sockpuppet for a single edit. That is contrary to Misplaced Pages policies, all of which we follow to the letter. In addition, accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence is a serious thing here on Misplaced Pages, and inappropriate without evidence.
], which seems from what I can see onwiki a very weird block, but as it is based on an UTRS ticket I can't judge it completely. Still, if it was paid editing the block seems to have come 6 months after the fact, not at a time the paid editing was happening (if it ever happened), so why a block and not a warning/discussion? ] (]) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


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


{{ping|331dot}} it turns out you were perfectly correct with this block, and at the same time not allowed by policy to convincingly explain it, which must be frustrating. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to the others who took a look at this one. I'll not bother you about similar ticket-based blocks in the future, as it is clear that I can't independently assess them, the one example I used was a perfect block, and you may not explain it in any detail anyway. ] (]) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Tryptofish has stated that abusers of Misplaced Pages need to be identified to be banned, we agree with this. And if we are proven to be abusers of Misplaced Pages policy, there is no way we would continue in a similar vein. We would correct any potential abuse of policy if there was one. Fortunately there has never been such abuse.
:Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. ] (]) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


This was closed with the comment "Withdrawn by OP as explanation was deemed suitable. If anyone wants to harangue the multitudes, you may revert my close. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)" but this is incorrect. While the second case was convincingly explained, the ] case was not withdrawn and was a bad block and bad declined unblocked. ] (]) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Nick-D also falsely accuses us of using “dozens of sockpuppet accounts”. We have never used a SPI to post an article and have never once had more than one account edit the same page, ever. In fact, we don’t have any “accounts” at WikiExperts. Wiki Experts have their own accounts and work entirely independently of one another.


== Request for closure review ==
User:MONGO has stated that Misplaced Pages is a hobby, not a job. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that supports this.


I would be grateful for a review of the decision to close the discussion at ] in favour of merging the article ] into ]".
User:DES accuses us of only abiding by rules we like. WikiExperts abides by all actual rules on Misplaced Pages and has never said otherwise. COI is a guideline, not a rule.


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


I subsequently with Compassionate727 who declined to revise their decision (entirely within their rights).
User:Tom Harrison also unfairly, and without evidence, accuses us of using multiple accounts.


I am therefore bringing this to the noticeboard to respectfully request a review of the decision to close in favour of merging. The main points I would flag are:
User:My very best wishes has made a clear and inappropriate personal attack on me in the above string.


* I think the verdict that there was a "rough consensus to merge" is questionable.
User:Orange Mike claims we are spamming Misplaced Pages. We are not. In fact, we have never encountered Orange Mike before despite his valiant efforts to keep spam off Misplaced Pages. That is because we have never spammed Misplaced Pages, and we do hope that such a significant figure on Misplaced Pages would be able to find value in our well-researched and community accepted articles if he ever came across them.
* The proposal to merge, and subsequent discussion, date from immediately after the article's creation and while the article was in the process of being expanded and improved. The latest vote for merging is from 31 May 2024, and the article has been significantly expanded since then. My view would be that, in light of the changes made to the article since 31 May, it would be reasonable to revisit the matter to consider if any of the arguments in favour of merging have been satisfactorily addressed. In effect, the decision to merge does not give weight to any improvements to the article since May 2024.
* On a practical level, it is unclear how the article could realistically be merged into You Like It Darker without running into ] or purging the vast majority of content. The article has not been merged over two months following the closure.


If the settled view of the community is to merge the articles on the basis of the discussion in May-June then I will of course accept that, but on this occasion I would respectfully ask that some more consideration be given as to the best course of action. Thank you. ] (]) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
User:LGA discusses “fall out” from our work on Misplaced Pages, but does so without any evidence an article we produced was not within Misplaced Pages guidelines.


:'''Overturn and reopen''' Not a single comment was made after the request was posted to ], and, excluding the nom's !vote, there is one proponent of the merge, who cited a concern that appears to have been addressed. There should be further discussion here. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Jehochman is making the only argument I’d really like to make myself, which is, we’ve never broken any actual rules nor have we damaged Misplaced Pages in any way. No evidence exists to say we’ve broken policy or added non-notable articles, and I myself am telling you we have not ever damaged Misplaced Pages’s copy and text. Each article we have worked on has in fact received a great amount of praise from the community, from barn stars to personal thanks.
:'''Endorse''': The sources added after the merge proposal opened are all about the book. The notability of the book cannot be inherited by the short story. Until there are several independent, reliable sources that establish the story is notable, this should be merged. The due weight issue can be resolved by cutting out the extensive plot summary and summarizing the reviews within the broader context of the book itself. Why not work on getting the book article completed instead of myopically focusing on one short story? ] (]/]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Overturn and Reopen'''. There's no consensus to do ''anything'' there, let alone merge. ] 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
*Just commenting, because I didn't receive the expected notification, that I am aware of this discussion. I may respond in substance later. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
**Okay, I had to take some time to remind myself of why I handled this how I did. Basically, because it was proposed for merging because of notability concerns rather than anything in ], I treated this discussion as an AfD in another venue. The way AfD works, in practice, is that the subject is presumed to not be notable until it is demonstrated that it is—which, if the subject is indeed notable, is rarely difficult to do. As multiple participants observed, no evidence was provided at any point in the discussion that this short story meets the ]; indeed, opponents of the merge didn't even bother trying to argue that it does. Instead, they tried to fall back on ], but again, they failed to provide any evidence that King's corpus is a {{tq|common subject of academic study}}, and {{u|Οἶδα}} provided a reasonable argument that it probably isn't. The notability of the story not being demonstrated, I found a consensus to not retain the article, which in this case meant merging.{{Pb}}I would find it idiosyncratic for the result to be overturned to no consensus because of the discussion's low participation, which is entirely characteristic of merge discussions. I would find it vexing if my closure was merely vacated and the discussion reopened, as participants here are currently suggesting, because unless ''they'' want to join the discussion, doing so is quite unlikely to actually garner additional participation and will instead merely stall the consensus-building process. In any case, with notability still not being demonstrated, I'm guessing that a "no consensus" outcome will merely cause the conversation to move to AfD, where I expect the article will be deleted unless new evidence emerges. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and reopen''' per my original reasoning as mentioned above (I didn't get a ping though) and strongly echoing Black Kite. ] (]) 22:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Overturn'''. I don't believe this discussion has meaningful consensus, and as someone who works on literary topics it is a somewhat frustrating discussion to read. First, the story is notable: Stephen King is a literary giant, and therefore his publications meet ] No. 5. Second, the notability is somewhat secondary; the real question for a merge discussion is whether a standalone page is appropriate. We routinely treat notable topics as part of a larger coherent article because that serves a reader better, and sometimes because that is how the sources treat them. The questions that needed to be answered are whether there is sufficient content to justify a standalone page, and whether a merger would create due weight issues. At a brief glance the answers to those questions are "yes" and "yes", but more to the point, those questions weren't examined in any depth. Honestly, I think this is a borderline case where either outcome could be made work with good editing (the collection article could be expanded, such that a merger wouldn't swamp it). Finally, the discussion had four participants, evenly split on the question. Absent a reason to completely discard one set of opinions - and I don't see such a reason - I don't see grounds to close this with consensus in favor of anything. ] (]) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to ] ==
User:Resolute accuses us of breaking NPOV. Let me reiterate, we have never broken NPOV, and are known to our clients as very restrictive on only posting neutral material.


REASON: It's directly mentioned in the article thus it's already immediately obvious. And because it uses characters outside the BMP, I can't create it myself so... ] (I ], ]) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Atethnekos also accuses us falsely of sockpuppetry, when it has never been proven and isn’t even the subject of this proposal.
:] already exists. Not sure about the dot in front of it? - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::From the article. <blockquote>There are no separate uppercase or lowercase letters as in the Latin script; instead of using capitalization to mark proper nouns, a "namer-dot" (·) is placed before a name. Sentences are typically not started with a namer-dot, unless it is otherwise called for. All other punctuation and word spacing is similar to conventional orthography.</blockquote> Seems appropriate for the forced capitalization of the wikipedia article, but I could see that going either way.] (]) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*]? Sure. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Done. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks ] (I ], ]) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Call for decisive admins to clear backlog ==
User:Nyttend is using speculation and original research to try and piece together an argument to keep WikiExperts from editing Misplaced Pages. He also accuses us of possibly breaking the law without any evidence whatsoever. I believe this is very contrary to Misplaced Pages’s rules.


So, there have been persistent backlogs at ]. I had not worked the area in a while, and I assumed it was simply so understaffed that appeals weren't even being looked at. What I have found instead is that, in quite a number of cases, between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the ''exact'' edits they would make. I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock.
User:Eaglestorm has declared that WikiExperts has declared “war on Misplaced Pages”. Firstly, at no point has this ever been stated by myself or WikiExperts.


Now, I don't agree with that approach as most of these appeals are from fairly new users and I was under the impression we were supposed to assume good faith and give second chances, not act like every unblock appeal was the trial of the century, and there is some terrible risk to just ]. However, the real problem here is that I'm seeing these long discussions, but then the reviewing admins don't ''do anything''. Even after asking the user to jump through all these hoops, they do not even get the courtesy of closure to their case.
In short, there is no evidence that WikiExperts or users associated with it have ever broken a rule on Misplaced Pages. Recently I have tried to state my beliefs on how COI guidelines have failed people we work with time and time again, and how we have been able to abide perfectly by the guidelines without announcing a potential COI, which is the truth. If stating we don’t follow a “guideline” that is not a “policy” here is enough to ban, I would request the closing administrator state as such. If guidelines are in fact enforceable policies, let this be the precedent. I would also add that while we would fight any policy that explicitly states we would have to declare COI for our clients, if made actual policy we would have to abide by that rule, as we abide by all others. ] (]) 09:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:AKonanykhin, the rule you are breaking ''is'' ]. The fact that we say guidelines may have the "occasional exception" does not mean, once you're aware of them, that you may blow them off entirely. You and your company's representatives, or anyone else you're paying/rewarding to edit, must disclose COI and stick to talk pages/noticeboards rather than editing directly in the COI areas. It is not optional. The "occasional exception" is not "an editor who disagrees may just ignore it altogether."] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 11:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:AKonanykhin, nice try with that lengthy diatribe of yours and your comments on what I just wrote. You forget that I got that from similar points by Smallbones and a few other editors. Paid editing is paid editing, in the same principle of reporters being paid a sum to write favorable stories about certain people. Don't forget that there are editors who are adding or deleting info about the organizations or companies they actually work for.--] (]) 14:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:Very well, AKonanykhin, show me that you are maintaining NPOV by revealing your client list so that the relevant articles may be inspected for such. PR firms exist to promote a company or individual's image and the nature of the business is inherently POV. If you and your group are that incredibly unlikely exception, then you should be willing to stand behind your work. ]] 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::Agreed. It would certainly be permitted for you to reveal the list of firms you have here, unless the contact forbids making such revelations, but that is the only good reason I can imagine for withholding full public disclosure. And even in that event, it would certainly be possible and I believe permitted for you to e-mail the list of clients and known or presumed identities of editors to OTRS or ArbCom or somewhere (I admit I don't which would be most appropriate) so that they can review the edits and see if you have, in fact, been abiding by the standards of wikipedia. ] (]) 18:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' per ].--] (]) 10:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support.''' Yes, ], ] is a guideline; however, ] is a policy. Misplaced Pages's guidelines are determined by consensus. Bans are enacted to prevent disruption of, and harm to, the project. A statement that demonstrates a unilateral refusal to abide by WP's guidelines due to one's personal perspective tends to show an inclination to disrupt and/or harm. ]] 14:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''', of course. "Just a guideline", while in some rare instances a valid argument, is incorrectly applied more often by people who don't quite understand what guidelines are and their relationship to policies. Guidelines describe how consensus has determined policies are to be interpreted in particular circumstances. The ] argument is also quite valid; While we can ensure some paid editors' intentions to purely produce accurate information on a company, a refusal to abide by COI as a matter of course makes it likely enough that their intentions are otherwise. <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #5BADFF">]] <span style="font-size:88%">14:38, 13 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font>
::Can you point out where the employees, of the clients, of wikiexperts are failing to abide by COI as a matter of course, because the proposal bans them as well, and what policy would justify such a broad ban? ]] 15:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Guess the more accurate wording would have been, "as a matter of policy", but the point still stands. I can't point out actual infractions, if they exist, since their policy of not revealing themselves prevents us from identifying their potential COIs. Perhaps there's no written policy in place that dictates a ban in this situation, as we've probably never had such a situation before, but that doesn't really matter. It would be best for the encyclopedia to prevent institutions that state they plan to flout Misplaced Pages's rules from editing, as best we can. <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #5BADFF">]] <span style="font-size:88%">16:57, 13 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font>
* '''Comment'''. I think any PR company which openly declares their Misplaced Pages services must be outright banned, ''unless'' they: (a) immediately and openly provide list of all their past and currently active accounts, and (b) promise to follow all basic wikipedia rules and actually keep their promise. This should be included in WP:COI, unless it's already there. This is nothing personal. Based on their statements and '''' so far, this company openly defies such requirements. And, yes, the idea of collective responsibility must apply in such cases because these users may act as a group. For example, one can easily imagine a situation when several users from such company support each other by comments, votes or reverts - hence the open disclosure of all their accounts is absolutely necessary. ] (]) 15:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* The above "action" was done prior to WikiExperts' opening and was not WikiExperts business. ] (]) 17:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - The key is not that they are doing paid editing (which is not outright disallowed), but that they refuse to attach identity to the accounts that do that paid editing as such those contributions can be reviewed, as per ]. That's the more troubling aspect. --] (]) 16:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:@AKonanykhin: Honestly, that comment you made regarding me is at least to my eyes pure bullshit. At no point did I indicate that I would take any sort of direct action, which is an unwarranted assumption that you seem to have jumped to rather easily with little provocation. Please refrain from such incendiary, irrational comments in the future, because if nothing else they raise very serious questions regarding your input. ] (]) 14:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
* I object that this thread is commercial slander and a violation of BLP. Bad things are being said about a person and his business without proper evidentiary diffs. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Replying to each of the individuals above stating things I believe are false is not a diatribe as User:EagleStorm has stated--I was putting all my replies in one place rather than scattering them across the votes above, paying attention to what each user has said, and responding where I can to make sure my side is clearly laid out, as should be done in any AN conversation. User:EagleStorm states that he received my "war on Misplaced Pages" comment from listening to other editors, which is exactly my point. There is a lot of misinformation being perpetuated above in terms of what WikiExperts does or does not do, due to large scale speculation. Let me reiterate. I have one and only one account and would never use another. Anyone who contracts with WikiExperts is instructed to follow COI guidelines to the letter as well as all Misplaced Pages policies, excepting only an official declaration of COI, to ensure our content is perfectly neutral. That has resulted in no complaints from any Misplaced Pages user upon reviewing our the articles we post. Regardless, the COI guideline is under much debate and constant editing. We don't have a clear consensus on Misplaced Pages. Banning WikiExperts without any clear evidence that WikiExperts has harmed Misplaced Pages in any way would merely be a backdoor to banning paid editors without first gaining full community support on paid editing generally, and that is both unfair and ignores the actual consensus that Misplaced Pages has reached--that only the current somewhat lenient COI guidelines can be agreed upon, and that banning paid editing is not something the community is willing to do. Until this is resolved to policy level, I have believed that following the more lenient approach that paid editing is allowed, so long as neutrality, verifiability, and other content policies are strictly followed. I would follow that up with a caveat that for anyone here who has a policy they believe we are not following, and that should be followed, please inform me of it so that we can review it and integrate it into how we edit. We want nothing more than to continue to be constructive members of the Misplaced Pages community, and very much sympathize with those that might be sensitive to the idea of paid editing. Our only intention in our ''off Misplaced Pages commentary'' being used to judge us above, was to open a dialogue on how we believe that COI declarations are not mandatory and can harm good, neutral editing Misplaced Pages paid editors by subjecting them to the same often over-the-top accusations that appear in this very comment string. ] (]) 16:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::How can an objective review of your contributor's content be accomplished without the requisite COI disclosure? ]] 16:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*** Misplaced Pages has many different methods of vetting articles and contributions, including new page patrol. Each of our pages gets patrolled when added. We write every article objectively, and they are all subjected to the same oversight that every new article has when being added. I'm not sure what you are asking for, for an additional level of scrutiny being given to us over other editors? Where would that occur? ] (]) 16:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::::You're not sure what I'm asking? OK, I'll bite; I'm requesting that you and the editors from your organization edit within the policies and guidelines of this project. ]] 16:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I think you've hit the nail on the head with your suggestion that you should be subject to "an additional level of scrutiny ... over other editors", AKonanykhin. The difference between your team's contributions and those of other editors is that you are acting as the agents of parties who quite naturally wish to be presented in the best light possible. ] (a Misplaced Pages-wide policy) - i.e. a presentation of the negative aspects of the companies you represent along with the positive aspects - is strongly impacted when your paycheck comes from those that desire the minimization of their negatives and an emphasis of their positives. Considering that there is an actual motivation for you to violate or at least skirt NPOV, there is clearly extra reason to review your contributions. You've previously made the dubious claim that all editors present a biased perspective when they write articles, but the reason that these alleged biases are only subjected to normal scrutiny is that they occur on the individual level whereas your group is engaging in systematic editing. -] (]) 17:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
***(c-e) :::Agreed. And the rather weak statement that "we don't choose to follow unofficial rules" is clearly a rather weak statement. Repeated violations of such "mere guidelines", are I believe themselves in at least some cases demonstrably enough for editors to be banned or otherwise sanctioned by ArbCom or on these boards. The fact that an organization seems to boast that it can, and apparently does in some cases, violate the conduct guidelines established at a private site, where editing is a ''privelege,'' not a right, does I believe raise serious questions which have not yet been addressed about the ethics of the firm involved, and such questions about the ethics of PR firms, if publicly discussed, could not unreasonably result in damaging press and damage to the reputation of the firms involved. And, yes, contentious matters around here get discussed in a lot of external media fairly regularly and sometimes thoroughly, whether we want that or not. Your statement, in effect, seems to be little more than a statement of "]", by a source whose ethics pretty much indicate that they are about as trustworthy as the first person that quote is attributed to. And, in response to the above comment, that isn't an answer. You seem to be attempting to dodge addressing the fact that you have one method under your control, regarding which you apparently insist you have a right to act contrary to guidelines. That apparent stated, insistent, refusal to abide by guidelines cannot help but damage any credibility you or your editors, and potentially all their edits, might have so long as you continue to make that insistence. ] (]) 16:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:::AKonanykhin certainly likes to rebut my comments. Hurt much?--] (]) 03:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - I'm inclined to oppose per Bilby. WP:COI doesn't provide a particularly solid basis for blocking when it goes out of its way to use words like "advice", "recommendations", "discouragement", etc. It's not that COI is just a "mere" guideline, but the language it uses is exceptionally fuzzy. I for one am grateful to AKonanykhin for clearly illustrating the weakness of our COI guideline. As Bilby pointed out above, this guideline should really provide the basis for a new ''policy'' explicitly requiring the declaration of COI for individuals and corporations writing about themselves (broadly construed) and including their agents and paid advocates. Rather than blocking AKonanykhin for failure to follow fuzzy ''recommendations'' in a guideline I think it's high time these common sense rules were made into firm policy. The only thing that holds me back from opposing the proposed block entirely is the sockpuppetry aspect of it. That really concerns me because when systematic corporate-backed sockpuppetry starts it just takes a few more turns of the wheel until we have flotillas of sockpuppets voting in AfDs, jiggering consensus on RS determination, and otherwise degrading our ability to form a clear consensus. Atethnekos's links above provide enough circumstantial evidence of this kind of taint to restrain me from opposing the block. -] (]) 17:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
**Policies are not laws and there need not be a policy in order to take an action that people feel is necessary. Practice often tends to come before policy. Those who feel that COI should be a strongly-worded policy should not feel there's a technical reason to oppose this action merely because COI isn't codified as such yet. <font style="color:#0059B2;text-shadow:0px 0px 5px #5BADFF">]] <span style="font-size:88%">18:51, 13 Oct 2013 (UTC)</span></font>
***Obviously the community can do as it pleases, but my lean toward "oppose" is based on moral, not technical grounds. I'm opposed to any kind of ] proceeding. I can't help but imagine myself on the wrong side of a "practice often tends to come before policy" argument and it makes my skin crawl. If we are serious about tackling this issue then we need to craft serious rules. Blocking AKonanykhin for ignoring our suggestions misidentifies the source of the problem. -] (]) 20:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Ban people for what they do, not who they are affiliated for. If we start preemptively banning editors because of their personal life and/or employment instead of because of what they actually '''did''' on-wiki, where will it stop? <span style="13px Sylfaen;color:white;background-color:#000000;padding:0 3px 0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 17:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*I find it significantly sad that there is an AN discussion this long and this contentious about WikiExperts, when there has not been a significant public thread about Wiki-PR. Wiki-PR has hundreds of confirmed clients, many more suspected clients (including *Viacom*, and a number of fairly notable bands,) and thousands of more as of yet undetected clients. The sockpuppet investigation in to Morning277 has been effectively shut down, and their work is continuing. All this thread is serving to do is let Alex get free advertising by managing to inject himself in to a discussion that should be centered around a different group of paid editors. ] (]) 18:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as utterly excessive. ] is a guideline, not policy. I'm not a big fan of paid editors, but I fully understand why a company would wish to keep the exact identity of their clients private. If all of the company's accounts were labelled as being linked to the firm, then there's little need to be this draconian. Beyond that, the proposal is VERY extreme, as it is literally just an enormous blanket; "otherwise encouraged to edit" is WAY too overreaching, as what is wrong with someone with this firm asking for one of their friends to update, say, the ] results table? That would violate this ban, and that makes this ban a bad idea. ] ] 19:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Everything here is a strawman argument.''' WP:PAY does not explicitly prohibit paid editing'''. Since the proposal cannot back up its claims with policy the whole thing should be withdrawn before anyone gets any silly idea about "declaring war on paid editors". <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 19:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


So, I'm asking, pleading really, for admins who find themselves able to come to a conclusion and act on it to pleas help with this backlog.
* I suggest tabling this thread and instead using the energy to conduct an RFC on paid editing with the goal of forming a solid policy. In the thread below I suggested that the policy might require paid editors (employees of the subject, or contractors), to disclose their work on a noticeboard set up for that purpose. Once the paid editing is disclosed, we can monitor it for problems, and take any measures needed, including swift blocks of problematic editors. We can hold paid editors to high standards and not waste time with any who try to play games. For any paid editors who try to avoid scrutiny by omitting the disclosure, it could be our policy to indef block them. I think such a policy would be better than what we have now, and alleviate the biggest concerns. If we test it and there are still problems, we can then discuss next steps. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
**I think having that RfC is a wise idea regardless. There's a real quick way to table the current discussion, though, and that is for wikiexperts.us to say "Alright, we get you, consensus is clear that we must reveal our edits. Here's the list of articles we've edited so far and the times we did, and we'll clearly mark such edits in the future." The fact that they won't do that makes it look even more like there's a reason they don't want those edits to be examined. ], would you be willing to do that? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
***(e-c)Just adding this before the thread is closed. That proposal above sounds ''really'' good to me. There might be problems with undisclosed editors for hire, and I would myself also like to see some such noticeboard to also include a way for corporations who see problems with their articles but don't want to have paid editors be able to contact people with sources to use to develop articles. But that proposal is at least a really good start. ] (]) 20:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
****I think we have an emerging consensus that paid editors should disclose. If their editing is good, disclosure should not have any downside. People look at the edits and go, "Yep, those comply with our content policy. Good edits. Thanks." If not, remedial action can be taken as needed. For the moment, I suggest that Wikiexperts agree that from now on their paid editors will go the relevant article talk page and post a note that they, the individual editor, are working for the subject and that they welcome scrutiny of their edits. There is no need to for individual editor to identify Wikiexperts as the agency-intermediary on the transaction. It's not our concern how somebody has been hired; it's not our desire to interfere with a business contract that might stipulate confidentiality; we just need to know that they are being paid so we can check their edits more carefully. Can everybody agree to that as a temporary measure until there's an RFC which sets up a general policy, and possibly a central noticeboard? ] <sup>]</sup> 21:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*****For me, at least, so long as someone says "I'm getting paid to do this", I couldn't care less who it is paying them. I just want to know, to be aware of what I'm looking for. And that's not even to say paid editors will ''intentionally'' edit badly, but subconscious bias can creep up on the best of us. It's possible the paid editor didn't find some serious negative information about their client, because, well, they weren't terribly well inclined to look. I am going to object to closing this thread, though, because we do not yet have any indication wikiexperts, in particular, actually plans to do that. If and only if they do commit to doing that, I would say they're no longer engaged in the behavior the ban proposal is for, and at that point the discussion would indeed be moot. That hasn't, to my knowledge, actually happened yet. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - largely per Monty845 and Jehochman. No need to so passively assume bad faith; surely we can wait until they at least do something to violate policy. '''] ]]''' 22:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::*''' which resulted in blocking an account by an arbitrator'''. I am sure there are many other similar accounts; I simply did not investigate (that's why Mr. Konanykhin is probably hesitant to disclose all his accounts). Mr. Konanykhin claimed above that it was not his company. Well, based on the editing pattern, that was either Mr. Konanykhin himself (in which case he should be blocked right now) or someone else who worked for Mr. Konanykhin. ] (]) 23:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' in principle. There are many rules that are good to have as rules, even if difficult to enforce. I have no great aversion to the idea of paid editing, so long as it is done aboveboard, with disclaimer of all conflicts of interest. ] ] 00:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support but Oppose simplistic ban as written''', preferring to insert the word "undisclosed" into the wording. Prohibition doesn't work. It just sends the practice underground where it is more difficult to monitor, let alone control. Paid editing is a fact of life. Some paid editors will be better, as in more compliant with our values, than others. We should reward the more compliant editors, the ones who self declare stick to that single account, and try to comply, so that their life is easier than paid editors working undeclared.<p>What if they declare that they are a paid editor, but refuse to say who pays, or to give details on their COI? I can see that they may justify this refusal on privacy concerns. I have seen privacy suffer due to attempting to declare details of COI. I think some balance can be found here. If they declare that they are paid, and declare that they have a COI, that is way better than editing undisclosed, changing account every time caught, until they become good at being undetected.<p>Tryptofish's concern is very important.<p>Agree with bd2412. --] (]) 03:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:*So how to do this?
:::Proposal: Undeclared paid editors are banned, effective from today. As banned editors, their edits are not welcome, even if otherwise constructive. Any pages authored by banned editors are summarily deletable per WP:CSD#G5. G5 deleted pages may be recreated by another editor in good standing, but they must be written afresh, as the banned editor's contributions are not welcome, and reuse of their material would require attribution per our licencing.<p>The question of whether an editor is an undeclared paid editor is resolvable at WP:COIN.<p>An undiscovered undeclared paid editor may retrospectively avoid banned status by immediately declaring as a paid editor.<p>An editor declaring their status as a paid editor must make a clear note to that effect at the top of their userpage.
::Notes: There is little point attempting to punish accounts. Accounts are cheap and disposable. What matters in paid editing is their product. If we delete their product, per their terms, they must refund the fees paid. This will make them pay attention.<p>Paid editors still need to be afforded personal privacy. It is not necessary to disclose full detail on who is paying them, and exact what they are paid to do. Having them disclose that they are paid editors will be a very good start, and quite possibly sufficient, as they can be watched. --] (]) 13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The gentleman and his associates have blatantly declared that they have an agenda that aims to subvert the open-source, public interest character of Misplaced Pages, as per the following statement on his Misplaced Pages article ]<blockquote><small>"We believe that boycotting fundraising efforts of Misplaced Pages might compel it to raise billions via advertising and develop content of significantly better quality."</small></blockquote>
:He's a vulture capitalist tool of the "investor class", in short, targeting an organization that looks like easy prey to him.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 05:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


I'm not looking to have a long discussion here about it, I'm asking for help dealing with it as it seems fairly out-of-control. ] ] 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose. This proposal violates everything we stand for.''' If someone says they think vandalizing Misplaced Pages is a good thing without ever vandalizing Misplaced Pages, soapboxing, or otherwise violating any policy, do we ban them? If someone says that Misplaced Pages should deny the Holocaust but never goes beyond expressing that opinion, do we ban them? It goes against our core principles to ban for thoughtcrime or for expressing unpopular opinions. Bans should be based upon specific edits that violate specific policies or guidelines, not on having a "contemptuous attitude toward our COI guidelines". I am very disappointed in those of you who support this, and I can only hope that you just didn't realize what you were doing. --] (]) 10:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:I'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with that characterization more. In some cases (and you didn't name me but you clearly include me) I have already reviewed and I'm not supposed to review again. I also have other things to do. And sometimes I forget. Nothing nefarious like its being made out to be. And yes, I don't want people to post here saying "that 331dot's wasting our time unblocking all these people who shouldn't be!". Is that so unreasonable?
::Consider the caveats of Tryptofish and SmokyJoe. This is an "ounce of prevention" approach. Disclosure is a core component of the COI policy, and the pretense to taking the moral high ground is made with accompanying statements that exceed the reprehensible and duplicitous. He is deviously waging an anti-Misplaced Pages PR campaign, like a devious PR man would be expected to do. What's wrong with upholding the stature of Misplaced Pages in the face of such chicanery.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 11:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:AGF does not mean accepting things on blind faith. ]; ]. ] (]) 22:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't believe I said or implied it was anything nefarious, as I don't think it is. I don't agree with the prolonged quizzes and goalpost moving I'm seeing in some of these requests, that's true, and sure, some of that is you but it isn't just you. It seems to me that we have an issue here exactly because too few admins are working in this area, and that group has developed their own version of "how it's supposed to work" that I do not think jives with what the community expects. ] ] 01:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What the community expects, or what you expect?
:::I'm not being disagreeable here. You and I have been around a long time and I think it's safe to say we've seen a lot of blocks and unblocks happen, and many discussed here and elsewhere. In my estimation, there's no consensus on how unblocking should be treated, because it's relying on admin discretion on a case by case basis. And questioning the blocked user to get more info - rather than ignoring and leaving them blocked! - was always seen as more merciful and giving the opportunity for AGF. We always have said that we as a community believe in the opportunity for redemption here. But not at the expense of disruption to the project. (See also ], especially the first line.)
:::All that said, concerning one of your comments, if an admin is going on vacation, a wiki-break, or whatever, then out of courtesy, they should note here that they are dropping certain tasks (like an unblock review) so that there is less confusion, and someone else can pick up the ball. - <b>]</b> 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:I do second the request for help, though. Thank you in advance. ] (]) 22:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Again, if someone says that Misplaced Pages should remove all material critical to Scientology but never violates any rule or goes beyond expressing that opinion -- once -- on the Scientology talk page, do we ban them? You are asking what is wrong with banning someone because they express an unpopular opinion. My answer is that ''everything'' is wrong with banning someone because they express an unpopular opinion. You may one day express the opinion that you disagree with the way Misplaced Pages is run. If that ever happens, would you object if we banned you for waging an anti-Misplaced Pages PR campaign, even though you had not broken any of the rules? In my opinion, your willingness to punish thoughtcrime hurts Misplaced Pages far more than any PR flack or sockpuppet ever could. Nonetheless, I would oppose banning you for it. --] (]) 19:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:I have some hypotheticals in response to your implication that current admins staffing RFU are acting unreasonably:
:* {{tq| between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the ''exact'' edits they would make.}} SpamEditor is blocked for spamming links to their small business. They request an unblock, with the statement: "Sorry I just want to edit Misplaced Pages productively, I won't do it again". AdminUnblocker uses the {{tl|2nd chance}} template. SE complies with that template after two weeks, and submits an article edit. AU and a couple of other admins comment on it. BlockingAdmin is consulted per the blocking policy, but takes a week or so to respond because they're on vacation.
:* {{tq|I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock.}} MeanEditor is blocked for ] based on three or four diffs and without any preceding discussion or AN/I report. ME requests to be unblocked, stating that they won't make personal attacks ever again, and sincerely apologizing for their conduct. While reviewing the unblock request, AU looks at ME's edit history and sees that ME had also regularly added unsourced information to articles. AU asks ME to explain what ] requires and to provide an example of a reliable source. After a back and forth, ME passes the exercise and is unblocked. Now, assume AU hadn't asked those questions and instead unblockes ME based solely on the sincerity of the apology. The next day, ME inserts unsourced information into several articles, continues after a final warning, and is indef'd.
: ] (]/]) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


*I also want it on the record that I strongly disagree with Beeblebrox's removal of {{noping|KathiWarriorDarbar}}'s block, a block that three admins (including me) didn't think should be removed. ] (]) 23:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose ban'''. If you can think of a reason to impose a ban which is explicitly based on policy, then I would like to see that reason, but until then... "''The company claims that they will act ethically and that it respects Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines with the exception of COI. We should put to the test whether they will respect our policy on bans by refraining from editing once banned from doing so, as paid editing without full COI disclosure is inherently unethical.''" basically means "''They say they're ethical. I think they're not. So let's ban them, and if there are any edits later, that proves they're unethical!''". Banning somebody to give them a chance to prove that they won't edit through a ban is just a 21st century form of witch-dunking. ] (]) 12:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Let's face it: paid editors are here to spam and spin. No one pays an editor to objectively edit something like ] unless they are trying to sell a book. So why pay for an article here? To sell a non-notable thing as "encyclopedic". 'Cause of the artificial notability. For me, Paid editing = spam. ] ] 13:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:* You do realize that you just supported a proposal that, as written, bans someone who has never spammed, never accepted pay for editing Misplaced Pages, and indeed has never edited an article, or done anything other that expressing an opinion that such editing should be allowed, right? I don't think anyone here has a problem with nuking actual spammers, but that's not what is being proposed here. --] (]) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::* My support isn't going to make any difference in this. I have a black-and-white view of paid editing in general. No one gets paid to edit an article for truly encyclopedic purposes. Who would pay someone to improve, say, ]? Unless they have a financial incentive to promote something? I work for free here as a volunteer, and am highly suspicious of the motives of any paid editor. That us all. ] ] 00:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - they are everything that Misplaced Pages is not and should not be. Independent paid editors can be tolderated; a full company cannot, as they cannot be trusted to abide by our neutality, bias and POV policies. ]] 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


* We can also add to the record that Beeblerox unblocked Jisshu, who had been blocked for copyright violations. In the meantime, Jisshu had been contributing to Simple Misplaced Pages... where many of their edits consisted of close paraphrasing. As documented ], the editor immediately returned to adding copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages and has been reblocked. Although I'm all for clearing the backlog, it's also important not to be sloppy about it. ] (]) 01:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* Let's stop this now. This ban proposal is premature. We need to first work out the policy basis by having a discussion to the effect that undeclared paid editing is unwelcome. Once we have developed that consensus and tag the page as policy, then we can look at specific cases in violation and deal with them. If this ban is placed, I will request arbitration to have it overturned. It is silly to keep going here. We need to resolve the policy question first. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*:I second this. I want to unblock people, but I also don't want to see them back, both for them(so they become good contributors) and for us(so we don't waste more time dealing with repeat appellants). Yes, blocks are cheap, and often ] is good, but not always. I also am aware of no policy that says only the stated/logged issue can be dealt with and nothing else, especially in the face of clear evidence. ] (]) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::What policy question? ]] 14:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*::Your "clear evidence" is too often a brand new editor who was blocked way too harshly instead of being warned, and then gets their unblock declined because they didn't fully understand the block (how could they?). The previous discussion included plenty of recent such episodes where you were involved (together with others). I don't get why blatant vandalism gets 4 warnings, but people adding helpful links to informative but unacceptable sources (their own blog, a commercial site they don't seem to be affiliated with) get an indef block without a warning and then a very unhelpful treatment when they ask for an unblock. ] (]) 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"Undeclared" paid editors usually get tripped up due to their use of WP for non-encyclopedic purposes. How else would one identify undeclared paid editing? ] ] 14:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::I'm trying to balance being helpful with avoiding the user telling me what I want to hear(giving them the information I'm looking for). I provide help when specifically asked. ] (]) 10:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|add to the record}}? What record? The record of giving people a second chance and then being disappointed but not particularly surprised when they squander it? As far as I'm concerned that's how this is supposed to work. Simple unblock requests from newer users making a reasonable request for a second chance don't require a committee to deal with them. ] ] 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::No, El Beeblerino. It is a follow-up on 331dot's wording of {{tpq|I also want it on the record}}, which ] (I believe that it is likely you knew that question was false when you replied, but on the off chance you didn't.) --] (]) 04:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::But this was an editor who hadn't ''learned'' they were about to squander it! Did you think they were lying when they said they understood what paraphrasing was? If yes, why unblock? If no, why set them up for failure like this? -- ] (]) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::You asked them several questions and they gave at least semi-reasonable replies. They admitted they had copied material word-for word and said they would paraphrase in the future. You declined to action the report after all that, saying that someone needed to check their edits on another project for copyvios.
*:::<br>
*:::I read the appeal and the subsequent conversation and came to my own decision, which was different from yours. That's how it goes. It isn't personal, I just did not see it exactly the same as you did, and since you explicitly said you would not decline the request I took the action I thought was appropriate. I did not and do not see this as overriding your decision, but equally I do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do.
*:::<br>
*:::It turns out they didn't understand any of it and actually acted even more clueless than they had before the block, and were swiftly reblocked for it. I've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself, and added my own comments about how their behavior post-unblock was terrible and clueless. All we can do is try and educate newbies, which you tried to do. Some people are just unteachable, that's just the sad truth of it and I feel at this point that this is a ] case.
*:::<br>
*:::I think we have similar basic goals in mind, we want newbies to be given a chance, but your approach with the quizzes is simply not how I approach things. That's ok, we ''need'' diversity of opinion and approach in these areas.
*:::<br>
*:::As far as I am concerned, this specific matter has already been resolved. ] ] 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Honestly I suspect that exactly this reaction is what's actually going on here: admins are reluctant to unblock people for the same reason governors are unwilling to pardon people, because if they let someone edit and they do something bad again people will rightly-or-wrongly now blame the unblocking admin for it. ] (]) 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::What I do is add an event to my calendar so that I get a daily email reminder to check the unblocked person's contribs. I typically have several of these happening. This system gives the opportunity to give timely feedback if they are still not getting it, or to reblock if necessary. ] (]) 12:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] (and others): may I take a moment to recommend ] which lets you create reminders onwiki which then appear on your watchlist. You can even "snooze" them once they appear. Best, ] (]) 15:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Sob story''' About a year ago, I decisively tackled ]. It was exhausting. It was disheartening. I felt constant fear of making a mistake. That fear got worse when many of those I unblocked resumed disruption and were reblocked. The sense of achievement from the few successful unblocks was not enough to overcome the sense of stupidity I felt from the reblocks. I gave up. {{ping|Beeblebrox}}, you have renewed my willingness to make decisive (if high-risk) unblocks. {{ping|Tamzin|JBW|Asilvering}}, are you with me?] (]) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::<small>That's weird, because recently this page has made me want to hand back my barely-unwrapped mop. --] (]) 14:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::{{yo|DoubleGrazing}} Don't get discouraged. Remember it is a learning and relearning experience. Be open to feedback and adjust your focus and methodology as needed. ] (]) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm in a similar position. I waded in to ] some time ago to try and help clear the backlog and pretty much every case I looked at was seemingly already being reviewed by other admins. Despite the volume of requests in there, I found very few "virgin" requests where I could pop in and make a quick decision without overriding anyone but the blocking admin.
::I agree with @], we need to stop the protracted discussions. If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. If you're not sure, err on the side of assuming good faith; their edits can always be rolled back and they can be reblocked if necessary.
::Above all, let's not beat each other up if we make a mistake on that front. Assuming good faith is one of our central pillars and nobody should be lambasted or made to feel stupid for doing so. ]] 14:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along.}} Why is this better than having a dialogue, answering questions, and educating the editor? ] (]/]) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Two reasons. First, with limited admin resources, that time-consuming approach just isn't feasible if we want to actually get the backlog down. Second, as @] has pointed out, it often turns the unblock request into something closer to what ] has become, and none of us want that. ]] 11:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Well, outside of the context of this thread, my answer is, of course, "you know my philosophy, you know I'm with you". I believe very firmly in treating people with kindness, collegiality, and above all, patience. That's precisely ''why'' I have been engaging at some length with blocked editors. Given the context of this thread, it appears that "decisive" means "with minimal discussion or delay". I've already watched one editor I had been interacting with get unblocked without any verification that they understood what was expected of them; that editor was ''so'' excited to be unblocked, immediately connected with another interested editor in the topic area... and was reblocked. I don't think that was kind, collegial, or patient, and I don't think it was just, either. If that's what being decisive is, I don't want any part of it; it's heartbreaking. -- ] (]) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{non-admin comment}} I'll gladly endorse second-chance unblocks that lead to disruption, if it means we can avoid reaffirmed blocks that prevent good faith contributors from joining Misplaced Pages. It's the difference between short-term disruption on a few pages versus potentially years of contributions lost. I don't object to talking to the blocked editor first to make sure the concerns are addressed, but the admin should go in looking for reasons to unblock rather than the other way around. ] (]) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{to|Thebiguglyalien}} Wait. You endorse unblocks that ''lead'' to disruption? ] (]) 16:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, I'm simply describing ]. ] (]) 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::😵 ] (]) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You 😵, @], but when it comes to low-stakes obvious vandalism and so on, I think this is fine, so long as the unblocking editor keeps an eye on the next few contributions to see whether the rope got used in the, uh, traditional manner. People who replace the content of an article with "pee pee poo poo" know what they're doing. I had gotten the impression from my early lurking at unblocks that this was unacceptable, sighed about the death of ], and resolved to bring it up once I had more unblocks experience. Since then I've only seen fit to apply it in cases where the block is quite old already, so it didn't seem like much of an experiment (and indeed, no noose-takers), and one other case with other mitigating concerns (I was immediately snarked at for this one, but so far, still no noose, just a slow-moving cat-and-mouse game I don't know what to make of yet). -- ] (]) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::ROPE itself says that sometimes these discussions are appropriate: {{tq|Sometimes those prolonged unblock discussions produce real results in educating the blocked user about why they were blocked and helping them to edit productively in the future.}} I've made ROPE unblocks, but I've also made unblocks where I've had a discussion with the editor. By ROPE's own terms, whether to do one or the other is within an admin's discretion. ] (]/]) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Indeed. I've done both as well. ] (]) 16:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::And I'm fine with that, as long as we're more forgiving to admins who make bad unblocks as opposed to admins who make bad blocks or are too quick to dismiss unblock requests by editors who don't know "the game". ] (]) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If Beeb had asked the admins involved instead of bringing this to AN, I think you would have seen answers like @]'s. This idea that people staffing CAT:UNBLOCK are looking not to unblock people appears to be coming from WPO editors assuming bad faith. ] (]/]) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::That thread in particular has some extremely funny things to say about me. Recommended reading, really. -- ] (]) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm always amused when someone implies that I am under mind control from WPO. I assure you that I am quite capable of making my own decisions. Where the initial alarm bell went off is not relevant, I, myself, looking much further than the specific cases mentioned there, found what I believe to be a serious systemic problem in the unblocking process. I don't believe I said anywhere that the regulars in this area are {{tq|looking not to unblock people}}, I said too many requests were being discussed at length and then never closed, whether as an accept or a decline. That's not acceptable. What we need here, as I very clearly stated when opening this thread, is more admins working this area and more willingness to just make an up-or-down call on unblock requests. ] ] 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::"looking not to unblock people" etc. was in response to alien's point, not yours. ] (]/]) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::All this "that part of my comment was directed elsewhere even though the other part was clearly directed at you" is getting farcical. If anyone wants to '''help out with the damn backlog''' please jump right in. That was the point here. It's down to fifty-eight items right now, which is bad but not as bad as it has been some days. ] ] 00:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Beebs, you could save us all some time if you'd just tell us which users . I'm a little exasperated myself lately at some blocks that have been ignoring the ] especially with respect to new users, and I'd be happy to look into some but I'm not going to waste my time sorting through the drivel over there on the off chance that there might be a helpful comment. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:How nice to see locations of the targeted admins being brought up on the first page. ] (]) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Ivanvector}}I have responded to one or two that were discussed over there, but I've mostly just been scrolling through the list and just picking them at random. I've found plenty that just needed someone to take action that way.
*:I admit I shy away from the CU blocks. I know those were moved back to largely being reviewed by the community but I'm not actually sure how we're supposed to actually do that. ] ] 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::And also starting threads here specifically about the admins and their specific actions that are being discussed there by people who are banned here. I'm not going to harp on this because I happen to be roughly on the same page, but do mind ] and ]. Regarding checkuser: I'm not sure what you mean by "moved back to the community" - all a CU block indicates is that private information is involved in the block decision, and for that reason the community shouldn't be reviewing CU blocks at all. Likewise checkusers shouldn't be flagging blocks for no reason. But if a CU has already reviewed the block, it's supposed to be good to go for regular reviews by admins or the community; I'm trying to be more explicit about that in the blocks that I review, if I don't just close the appeal myself. And like I said below: if you come across an unblock that's sitting idle because it's waiting on a checkuser, try flagging it with {{tl|checkuser needed}} so that the page gets listed in the table at ]. Stuff listed there gets the fastest attention. <small>I know you probably already know all of this, but I'm saying it anyway for everyone's benefit who might not.</small> ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] what's been ] has been CU blocks basically being appealable only to arbcom to being able to handled onwiki by any CU in most circumstances (and/or a CU removing the CU part of the bloack because there is no socking going on and letting an admin handle other issues that contributed to a block). Best, ] (]) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Ah. I hadn't worked this area in a while and I think I was on a break when that change was made, so I kind of missed the finer points. ] ] 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The unblock log would probably be shorter if some admins weren't so trigger happy. The other discussion here at AN contains quite a few examples of editors who shouldn't have been blocked so swiftly, and in the current unblock queue I see e.g. ], who needed an explanation, not a block. ] (]) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Checkuser blocks''' The blocks that have been waiting the longest for a response are checkuser blocks. I cannot unblock those, so I've not looked closely. Perhaps a checkuser could look at them?] (]) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I processed some from the top of the list that were marked as checkuser blocks - all of the ones I looked at had already been reviewed by a CU. I closed some but I am in meetings for the rest of the day. You might want to take a closer look, and perhaps consider adding a {{tl|checkuser needed}} if they are still waiting. There aren't that many CUs that patrol unblocks, but the template lists the page in a table at ] that we all look at. I think they also get posted to IRC but I'm not on there. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*Now seems like a good time to invite comment on ], my radical proposal for restructuring the system. It's already gotten some very helpful feedback from some of the participants in this discussion. Please note, this is '''still in the workshop phase''', so I'm not asking for support/oppose comments at this time. But I welcome any and all comments on its talkpage about how to make the idea better and/or more likely to pass an RfC. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:Trigger-happy blocks are for sure another serious issue here, we need to work it from both ends. ] ] 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': I've always found ] to be misused in the vein of the ] and heavily tilted toward those editors interested in writing about corporate entities. Until the community '''requires''' disclosure of a COI by '''any editor''' who might have one (instead of strongly advising), (), this type of ban request is merely an inquisition. --] (]) 14:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:I have little to offer here, except to say that decisiveness is a virtue only if the decider is right. In itself it is very overrated. I wish that people, especially politicians, would be more honest and say "I don't know" much more often. ] (]) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::So your position is that if the wording is changed mandating disclosure that the expressed intent to violate the WP:COI policy would be sufficient grounds for banning, but with the current wording <blockquote>''If you have a financial connection to a topic...<u>you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection</u>.''</blockquote>at ]), insufficient?
::Maybe it is time to close that loophole.--]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 15:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I don't know if it's helpful to call it a loophole. AFAIR, the guidelines have been clear for a long time that neither is disclosure required nor is editing with a COI including paid editing forbidden. As I said below, despite some occasional confusion this seems to be supported by long standing practice. And while there are arguments for and against this stance, I'm pretty sure at the time of formulation the lack of a requirement for disclosure was intentional. If people want to change the guidelines, there are ways to go about, clearly trying to use a different intepretation at AN is not the way to go about it. If consensus is reached that failing or refusing to disclose a COI is blockable that's fine but it should be full thought given to the implications of such a requirement. (Personally I think if full thought is given the requirement will be far more more limited most likely only applying to a specific form of paid editing.) ] (]) 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


== Self-requested RM relist review ==
:::@Ubikwit: I think my position is clear. COI as written and invoked today is grossly biased against editors who might want to contribute to corporate related articles because it presumes anyone with a COI can't contribute well sourced, neutral content to notable corporate topics. Such presumptions demonstrate great upfront bias and POV. I do not think that '''requiring''' disclosure of COI is neither wise nor practical. However, unless it is made a requirement and applied equally to all forms of COI--''Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest.'' (from WP:COI), ban requests like this will remain an inquisition. --] (]) 19:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{atop|1=It appears there are no objections. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I recently relisted ] but I'm not entirely certain if that or closing as not moved was the correct option. There were zero !votes in support of the requested move, and the nominator's argument misrepresented policy, but three of the oppose !votes indicated that they would support renaming the article to something else that accounts for the fact that the article also discusses another bill. Therefore, I relisted the discussion with the following comment:
{{bq|There is a very clear consensus against the proposed move, but some people have suggested moving to an alternative title that also accounts for the mention of another bill in this article. Further discussion is needed on that aspect of the request.}}
I've never relisted a discussion for a reason like this before, so I've come here to request review of if my decision was the correct one. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think this is an appropriate relist since additional discussion might lead to consensus on a new title or enough options for a ]. ] (]/]) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== "Early" closes at AfD ==
* '''Oppose''' -- Editors should be judged on their editing behavior per ] ''not'' who they might be in real life. This includes the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their gender, their education, their age, their nationality, their philosophy ''and'' their employer. This proposal, if passed, is the beginning of open-ended and "legalized" discrimination on WP.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 15:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:*Let's face it. This is . Yes, it makes a lot of difference if someone edits in his own capacity, rather than as a member of an outside organization with goals very different from our goals. ] (]) 15:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


The closing instructions at AfD currently says {{tqq|A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours).}} I have noticed that several discussions each day are being closed early. Most of these are less than 30 minutes early but I have seen up to 2 hours early of their 7 days/168 hours. If articles are being closed as keep, I think that's arguably defensible and relisting early when it's obvious no consensus will be reached definitely makes sense, but I have a harder time with deletions. Truthfully, I don't understand the rush, especially as most (if not all - I've only spot checked this) are being done with XfDCloser which warns you if you're going early - that is these admins are making a conscious to close early. Since we're talking a handful minutes it likely doesn't make a difference in the outcome. But for me the instructions imply closing before 168 hours should be more a IAR situation rather than several discussions each day and multiple admins doing it. I thought I would bring it here for discussion to see if it's just me or if it bothers anyone else. And if it is just me maybe we adjust the instruction (or maybe I'm just making normally out to be a stronger prohibition than it's meant to be). I'm specifically not naming any of the admins or linking to any early closes as I'm not looking to get anyone "in trouble", just trying to see where the community stands, but obviously all of this can be observed by anyone else who wants to go through the day's closes at AfD. Thanks and best, ] (]) 04:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*I think this entire discussion went on a wrong track. This is not a "COI problem", but a "MEAT problem". If people work on behalf of an outside ''organization'' or another person, they appear essentially as "]" and therefore ''must'' disclose that they belong to a certain organization or work on behalf of another person (who might also have his own account like Mr. Konanykhin).
:Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't ''overly'' matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). ] (]) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|TheSandDoctor}} I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours ''since last relist''. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. ] (]) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, ] (]) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes, {{u|TheSandDoctor}}, there's no requirement to wait another ''week'' following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. ]'']''] 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{re|Serial Number 54129|Vanamonde93|Daniel}} Thank you all for the insight on this. I've just always operated under the assumption/understanding that relists were for another full 7 day cycle as if the AfD was just (re-)posted. I'll adjust accordingly. Thank you! ] <sup>]</sup> 00:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::::To be clear the AfDs I'm discussing have not been relisted; they're being closed before 7 total days. Best, ] (]) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{nacmt}} I was actually thinking of raising different modification: currently ] actually indicates discussions should be closed after they have been moved to ] (which is 168 hours + rollover of UTC day), which definitely does not reflect practice. I would agree that pre-168 hour closure should probably only occur in exceptional circumstances, though I can't say I've really been keeping track of them so I wouldn't know if the current rate is above my expectations. ] (] • ]) 12:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::I haven't done formal math but based on having looked at this over 10 days of closes I'm guessing it hovers just under 10%. Best, ] (]) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have been doing some afd closes and I have noticed this as well, probably done it a few times myself, when the result seemed unlikely to change. I usually start doing them less than two hours before midnight UTC though, which is three in the afternoon for me. ] ] 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't recall you from the days I've sampled, but art of my thought here is that AfD seems more than adequately staffed at the moment. So what's the rush with any of these? Just let them play out for the full time and any of the many admin who are around can handle it. Best, ] (]) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I just popped in there, all but one from today was already closed. I could be imagining this, but it feels like since I started doing AFD closes again last month, the other regulars have started doing them even earlier. It also seems clear that some of them are watching them days ahead of time, while myself I prefer to come in clean and just read the debate, but that's perhaps just a matter of personal taste. I agree there's no real rush, there's plenty of other backlogs that actually need help. ] ] 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, it tends to be only the kinda gross ones that end up on the /Old list. I've set myself a personal policy to not relist anything that hasn't made it to that page, but I'd also be pretty happy if we all agreed to only close AfDs after they ended up there. -- ] (]) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::If the issue is that ] ({{tq|To process an AFD debate listed on a day page containing debates ] to be closed}}) implies something different than the explicit statement in ] ({{tq|A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)}}), then the two should be reconciled in some way.
::I don't think that there is an objectively better answer here, but the current practice appears to be closer to the language in ]. Since, as ] notes, {{tq|technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors}}, I think we may want to consider tentatively revising ] pending future discussion. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 01:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Except old enough links to ] and only things older than 168 hours appear on that page. So I'm not sure I agree they need reconciling. Best, ] (]) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*As someone who has closed thousands of AFDs, I'll just say that closure times varies a lot over time (I'm talking years) and with different discussion closers. NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early, sometimes a full day or two early. I assume this is because they think a discussion looks like SNOW and they want to get the practice of closing AFDs. I regularly remind them to wait for 7 days to pass.
:And we have some admins, none of whom are currently closing AFD discussions, who consistently close up to 9 or 10 hours early. In the past, I have often left a user talk page note about these early closures and those notes usually result in changes in their behavior. Then, there is another phenomena at 23:00 UTC, there is often early closures of lingering AFD discussions that are due to end between 23:00-24:00 UTC. In general, I don't get concerned about AFD closures that are within an hour or two of the appropriate closure time but I do post notifications to closers who close AFDs half a day or days early. We have respected admins who are irregular closers who close a discussion as SNOW that doesn't seem like SNOW to me! I'll just say that while this phenomena might be getting attention right now, the situation is much better now that it was months or years ago. I also recommend that any chiding of closers is done as a general and gentle reminder to all admins, not singling out individuals as we always are short of closers and some of our worst early closers simply do not close AFDs any longer. That's my 2 cents as someone who spends a lot of time in this area.
:I'll also say that while I believe in the 7 day rule, we really get little discussion participation after the first two or three days, when discussions are first posted or right after a discussion has been relisted. We see little last minute activity in deletion discussions. That's my observation. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::That's what I've generally seen as well, although as you know I wasn't regularly doing them for quite a while until recently. I figure when it is the last hour for everything, it's probably ok to close slightly early unless you see a very recent post that makes a new point or points out sources not previously discussed. Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.
::<br>
::For the record I appreciate your pointers to me when I started doing them again. The ] is a real game changer, which is probably why closes are being handled so quickly, but you do kinda need to know what you are doing with it.
::<br>
::For those that may not know, the XFD closer does alert you when you are closing a discussion early and you have to affirm you are doing so deliberately. ] ] 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.}} I have to register strong disagreement with this statement. It's not my experience that most AFDs are closed hours ahead of time. I think that most closers are very respectful of the 7 day guideline and only close discussions early if it is SNOWING until we get to the 23:00 UTC hour. I think some closers, admins and NACs, have a SNOW bar that is too low (like 4 Keeps or 4 Deletes) but that is a subjective judgment on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
: I disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion. An AfD should be closed when the outcome is clear. A ] close is absolutely fine when the snow has fallen. An early close by a few hours is fine when, aside from outliers making weak arguments, there is overwhelming consensus for specific outcome that cannot realistically change in the course of the normal pattern of an AfD. ] ] 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, this seems like a good problem to have.
::Regarding, "{{tq|NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early}}", I've closed discussions as clearly keep on the seventh calendar day, but an hour or more before the clock completely runs out, and don't see an issue with something like ] where there is discussion and only keep !votes. I've also had several times where I read through the discussion, wrote up the rationale, and came back a few minutes before the clock ran out only to find the discussion already closed early by another editor. Closing early (at least for me) is to avoid duplicating and wasting effort.
::A technical solution to make collaboration easier when closing would be appreciated. I have no idea how the XFDcloser gadget works, but I'm imagining some kind of way to flag an AfD discussion not as closed but as "being reviewed" or something like that. ] (]) 02:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], I wasn't talking about all NACs or anyone specifically. I think it's just a tendency among NACs to be enthusiastic about closing or relisting discussions and so they can take action too soon sometimes. But NACs help out a lot and usually make accurate closures. IF I have issues with any editor, I bring it to their User talk page and they are almost always very responsive to criticism which, to me, is an essential trait on this platform. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@], gotcha, and I wasn't taking it in a personal way. I realize it can be hard to tell with just text. ] (]) 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*Quibbling about a few hours seems to be clearly against the spirit of ]. If an the admin has time to process a batch of AfDs now but not in a couple of hours, it makes sense to do that rather than letting them sit. For many years ] has also implicitly encouraged this but colouring such discussions yellow instead of red. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 08:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The yellow is just for relists, as far as I can tell. An AfD that is about to hit 168 hours is still red. -- ] (]) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Oh! I've always misunderstood that then. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'll be the contrarian I guess. I understand ], but by the same token, if someone is fervently defending a '''keep''' of an article, especially if contentious, giving the full 7 days is not a bureaucratic move, but one of respect. People have taken their own time to create such media (articles, images, etc) and we should be respectful of their time and efforts before removing them, especially if done in good faith. One of the biggest problems we have is getting new people involved. There's no quicker way to get someone out than to delete all their work. All that said, yes, a ] keep = ok to close early. The same would apply for a ] no consensus. Some additional, generic clarifying guidelines for both Admins and users would probably go a long way. ] (]) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:] and ]: . Feel free to revert if you believe it is in error. ] (]) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: I completely agree with and endorse this outcome. I would assert that any ] outcome can be closed once the snow has fallen, and that any discussion for which the outcome cannot reasonably be expected to change is in the same situation. If for example, you have a nomination for deletion that starts out with a handful of delete votes, and is followed by a flood of keep votes with well-reasoned bases in policy and evidence, particularly where the article is improved over the course of the discussion with the addition of sources demonstrating notability, then there is no reason to embarrass the subject any further with a deletion template. ] ] 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Why should there be a different standard for deletion versus keeping? ] (]) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== On replacing crap lead image for Sophia Loren ==
*'''Support ban'''. This company isn't only advertising that they will create articles for companies that meet our notability guidelines - they're also advertising that they will keep these articles free of negative content (eg. "Your Misplaced Pages presence is completely safe, if you entrust it to us"), presumably even if well-sourced. I would appreciate more evidence about specific users identified as working for this firm, or pages the firm has edited, but even without that, I think we have enough to show that they are not interested in following policy in the specific, as well as a general problem with ] (their goals and the encyclopedia's goals are not similar, and they've outright mocked our guidelines and people who try to enforce them). –] (] &sdot; ]) 20:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Archive top|I have indefinitely blocked Light show for this latest knowing violation of their topic ban, as noted in the discussion below. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 14:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::That's what I see too. Taking negative content out of the articles seems like ] it - sometimes, truth hurts, live with it. Unfortunately, that's gonna happen if we let these Wikiexperts clowns run wild in the project.--] (]) 04:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
As a topic-banned editor, although no one knows why, am I allowed to request that a piece of crap photo of ] be replaced by one worthy of her stature? I assume I can't request it on her talk page. There seem to be over a 100 of her on the commons, 99% of which are better than the one someone stuck on her bio. Try , for starters, which shows her at the peak of her career. An editor a few months ago requested someone "replace that crap crop" of ] on my talk page, which was accomplished.


Top Awards: Academy Awards: Best Actress: her the first actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language performance.
* '''Strong support''': the very existence of a website like that one undermines the whole concept of WP. Its manager/CEO/whatever openly stating that he will not follow ] and adding gems like this one:
Honorary Award: (1991) for her contributions to world cinema.
::''RE: "you have no actual right to be allowed on Misplaced Pages. -- How come? I'm out, even though any looser can be there, safe in his anonymity and bullying experts and professionals?''
Golden Globes:
:is a clear indication that he has zero respect for the project and the people involved in it. Even if the ban is technically very difficult to impose it sends a clear message and acts as a warning to anyone out there thinking of giving money to them. ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 20:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Cecil B. DeMille Award: (1995) for outstanding contributions to the entertainment world.
*'''Very strong support''' " "..a company which has explicitly stated that it will not follow those guidelines and in fact considers it "unethical" to do so", seems to have been demonstrated by the OP. A function of the organization appears to be to use Misplaced Pages for reasons outside our core pillars.--] (]) 00:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Multiple Golden Globe nominations, winning Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical for The Millionairess.
Cannes Film Festival: Best Actress: Two Women (1961).
BAFTA: Best Foreign Actress: Two Women (1962).
Grammy Award: Best Spoken Word Album for Children: Peter and the Wolf (1981), shared with other performers.
7 Best Actress Awards, including for Two Women and A Special Day.
Golden Lion Award for Lifetime Achievement (Venice Film Festival): (1998).
Presidential Medal of Freedom (USA): (2019), awarded for her cultural contributions.
Career Overview: Number of Films: Over 90 films over a 70-year career.
] (]) 07:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
: It's logged . Reason: IDHT+disruptive edits. ] (]) 07:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Given that you've been blocked '''six''' times for breaching the topic ban, I would have thought it would have been clear why it exists by now. Not only that, but ''this'' request is also a violation of the topic ban, which you should have been aware of per ]. ] 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't think one is allowed to use the AN board, to request a proxy edit to an area one's t-banned from. ] (]) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:No. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{yo|Light show}} It is concerning that you do not understand the reasons for your TBAN and that you have once again violated it. ] (]) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


== {{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}} ==
*'''Weak support''' I was originally intending to strongly oppose based on the fact that the common reasons given aren't actually supported by our guidelines. In particular, our COI guidelines do not stop people with a COI from editing articles nor do they require disclosure. They simply strongly discourage such editing encourage disclosure This is supported by long standing practice where an editor is not blocked for editing with a COI nor for failing to disclose it, but instead only for actual violations they commit due to their COI and where we do perhaps have a lower tolerance for such poor behaviour for editors with an undisclosed COI. While I recognise a number of editors disagree with this, this obviously isn't the right place to change the guidelines. However looking more carefully, I see there is a resonable case to be made that the editors are actively violating ] namely using multiple accounts to violate scrutiny so there is some merit to a block. ] (]) 15:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::If people work on behalf of an outside ''organization'' or another person, they appear essentially as "]" and therefore ''must'' disclose that they belong to a certain organization or work on behalf of another person (who might also have his own account like Mr. Konanykhin). ] (]) 18:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Comment:''' It appears that in addition to unproven accusations of sockpuppetry against myself or WikiExperts (we have never once broken the rule against sockpuppetry), some editors are also bringing up unproven accusations of ]. The meatpuppetry on Misplaced Pages policy discusses the use of more than one person being used to sway an argument on Misplaced Pages, which is something we have never done. Never once has WikiExperts ever employed a series of individuals to support or oppose an argument on Misplaced Pages, including here in this comment thread. I'd also like to point out that I myself have plainly declared who I work for (as owner of WikiExperts) and my position there, and have never made an edit on a talk page without using this account, which features my real name. Even if there is a proclamation that editors must ] themselves in all cases of potential COI in the future, I myself have never broken that possible future rule. Why would the argument that COI must be treated as policy and not a guideline result in the banning of a person who is open about their connection to a company being discussed? I've been very clear about my association. However I refuse to ] any other editor, as this is against Misplaced Pages policy. ] (]) 19:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:No, you work for your clients. Given that you refuse to name them, your claim that you have "plainly declared who I work for" is objectively false. ]] 20:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::As someone who cracks down very hard on attempts to out users...I find the outing argument completely weak and fallacious here. If you don't want to be identified as being affiliated with a company, ''don't edit articles in a promotional way on behalf of that company''. –] (] &sdot; ]) 20:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


{{atop|Sulan114 is not eligible to file this petition. --] (]) 23:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*@Konanykhin. No, I think ''at least'' three accounts (in addition to your own account) already acted as your sock/meatpuppets: , , while editing your biography alone, and I am not counting other suspicious "trough away" accounts who edited the same article. One of them was blocked, and rightly so. Who knows how many others are out there editing other articles? ] (]) 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Admin targeted a User in October 2023 by making a redirect of users former usernames ] (]) 23:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:This user is not eligible to start recall, unless the rules have changed. ] (]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::] says: "Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate ] and policies." The link there, to ], says "Do not use Misplaced Pages to promote yourself, your website, or your organization." On Novermber 10, 2010, 15:36 default time, ] starts adding material to the page ] . Same date, 17:50 default time, new user named "Konanykhin" on Commons adds a photo of "Alex Konanykhin, author of book Defiance" and describes it as "own work" . Same date at 23:46 default time, ] adds that photo to ] article . ] continues to edit ] article, which also involved removing potentially negative information (November 20, 2010: ). ] also edits the ] article, including uploading the KMGi logo and adding it to the article . On January 4, 2011 ] indicates that he does paid editing and says that he has a "financial connection" with ] and ]. All of this shows clear conflict-of-interest meat puppetry, an infringement of ]. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 20:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::Nor can someone elected to ArbCom in the past year be recalled. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Agree. So, this is ''fourth'' meatpuppet account. I am not arguing that corporate accounts should be forbidden, but only that they must be properly registered as corporate accounts to allow scrutiny by community. Perhaps we need a separate category of accounts, called "corporate accounts", which would be a subject for more stringent rules, because a group of hidden corporate accounts can cause significant damage for the project, as we actually just have seen in case of Wiki-PR? ] (]) 21:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{abot}}
::::: Instead of accusing me of sockpuppetry here UserMyVeryBestWishes, please note that your prior attempt to investigate me for sockpuppetry ended without evidence to support your claim. I welcome you to do the same with any other account, as I have never committed sockpuppetry--in fact, I've never edited an article on Misplaced Pages before. Just review my user contributions to verify this. Also, User:Rosceles, no one has proven that I or anyone with WikiExperts has ever edited in a promotional manner, so I don't agree with your argument in favour of outting other editors, as it implies that we must be editing promotionally purely because we are being paid to edit. And, User:Resolute, please see our policy , where we stated explicitly "We do NOT upload articles provided by clients. We do NOT upload press-releases, advertorials, or other material not in compliance with Misplaced Pages standards.". We create referenced, neutral Misplaced Pages articles on companies or individuals looking to have a presence on the site. I work for myself, as the owner of the company. Clients purchase our services, I do not work for them. Just as McDonald's does not work for you when you purchase your meal. Besides the fact, that the meatpuppetry policy on Misplaced Pages covers a very specific practice--the use of multiple editors editing in concert on a talk page in order to sway an argument. You've misinterpretted the policy. ] (]) 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::He is accusing you of sockpuppeting because you '''are''' sockpuppeting. <span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #003399;">]</span><span style="text-shadow:0em 0em 1em #FF8C00;">]</span> 22:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::: Hi User:KonveyorBelt, I would encourage you to take a look at my response to his accusations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wexperts . I may post my response here, but am not sure what the protocols are for including identical information on that investigation's page and this page, as User:Atethnekos is doing? I think it would be beneficial to add the explanation here as well, but don't want to be accused of spamming the message. Would it be appropriate to add it as a comment below? ] (]) 17:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
<big><u><b>RfC on ]</b></u></big>
An RfC has opened on whether ] (BRIGHTLINE) should become policy. See ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


==Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.==
*'''Comment'''. I think real problem here is not paid editing, but whether someone works as an individual or on behalf of an outside ''organization''/another person <small> in Misplaced Pages (added later)</small>). In latter case, they appear essentially as "]" and therefore ''must'' disclose that they belong to certain organization or work on behalf of another person (who might also have his own account like Mr. Konanykhin). ] (]) 18:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*: Everybody belongs to some sort of organization. Would you force every editor to disclose their entire life story, their family members names, positions, affiliations, lovers, bastards, and so on? Come on, this is just getting too crazy. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro
::*I am talking about someone ''working on behalf of an external organization in wikipedia''. I thought that was clear. For example, I never worked on behalf of an external organization or another person in Misplaced Pages. Do you? ] (]) 01:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Belarus ] 06:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''support''' at a base level I was opposed to this proposal, because we should keep open access, but they have really shot themselves in the foot by explicitly saying they indent to ignore our policies. ] (]) 19:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I've never been paid to edit Misplaced Pages, but I've been paid to write articles for others to publish on Misplaced Pages. I then took that article to DYK of my own accord because it was interesting and DYK-worthy (w/o getting paid). If this policy passes, what stops me from being punished? I've never been accused of not being ] or posting articles that failed ], so why shouldn't I continue to edit the way I do?--v/r - ]] 23:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::If it passes, then yes, that would fall under the policy. But then, if the community decides that writing WP articles for pay is a problem, then writing Misplaced Pages articles for pay to be posted by a third party would also be a problem. Arguably not as big, and harder to detect, but still an issue. That's largely what has been happening with the Morning277 case - he writes the articles, and other people post them on his behalf. - ] (]) 01:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. That company should be banned from editing the Misplaced Pages. It is scarcely credible that someone who is paid on a regular basis to edit in Misplaced Pages can avoid conflict of interest that would defeat the usual Misplaced Pages criticism and contest process.] (]) 00:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
'''Oppose''' You can't get rid of it, all you do is drive it underground. The best way to deal with it is find acceptable guidelines, such as private disclosure (public would present obvious problems) and try to channel it. And, by the way, having recently been paid for an article (non-wiki) in real life, I find I like it.--] (]) 03:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' this issue is here to stay, if there's fuzzy guidelines rather than clear and actionable policies its our own fault. Admittedly the attitude of this particular "company" (?) leave a lot to be desired ''']]''' 15:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Why would not Mr. Konanykhin simply tell us: "Our company has editors X, Y and Z. They created/edited such and such pages. Please inspect: this is good job". No one would object this. To the contrary, their company could earn a very good reputation here. There is no good reason why they can not do it. The argument about "outing" (working for a company) is indeed unconvincing. However, if they do not do it, there is only one logical explanation: they are going to violate our policies, exactly as Mr. Konanykhin said in some of his statements above and publications (e.g. ). ] (]) 04:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


Add to wikidata.
*'''Comment:''' To answer the question as to why I cannot divulge our client base, beyond the Outting rule and the fact that as of now COI guidelines are suggestions and not policy -- we have non-disclosure agreements with our clients and editors. That means we cannot legally disclose who our clients are, or who works with us as editors. So long as COI disclosure is voluntary and not mandatory, we feel that a lack of disclosure is within the rules and policies of Misplaced Pages. If COI disclosure does become policy on Misplaced Pages, we would have to reconsider our own policies, however this would never be done in a retroactive manner.

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

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

Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.

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

Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania

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

*Hi. Thanks for this list of links but this isn't really the place to make content requests. If there's specific ] information in articles on other Wikipedias that could also be in our articles, then you should feel free to add it yourself. If you need help in how to do so, a good place to ask would be at the ]. Re the requests to add material to Wikidata: sorry but that's a separate site, you'd be better off reposting your requests directly at .-- ] (]) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{ping|The_Bushranger}}, could you take care of (I assume) this person at {{IP|37.21.144.243}} rq? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Done. - ] <sub>]</sub> 09:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

== Blatant vandalism ==
{{atop|result=Article draftified, not vandalized. Draft creator blocked after personal attacks. Page mover encouraged to use scripts that inform content creators when an article is moved to Draft space (see Draftify or Move to Draft on ]). <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I created a page ] and put A LOT of work into gathering all information. Within hours, user ] simply deleted it. No warning, no explanation, no reasoning, just deleted everything. This is not the first time this user has arbitrarily deleted or undone my work and you can see on his talk page that other users have experienced the same type of behavior by this user. He just keeps doing it over and over again. It is time for someone to put a stop to this, because this arrogance is completely unacceptable. Please deal with this person and restore the page I created. Thanks. ] (]) 08:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

:Can you link a specific article this happened on, and which IP performed the edit? ] (]) 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::This doesn't seem to be an issue for AN to deal with and I don't see the CRYSTAL issue mentioned by the IP user. Regardless here is a breakdown of the Malayalam category to answer the question: ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ] (At least, I believe this one refers to an ensemble cast); ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ]; ] by ] in ] Mostly different editors. --] (]) 07:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::: (106.196.26.252), (Arjusreenivas), (Arjusreenivas), (Killeri Achu), (SRAppu), (Mims Mentor), (2402:8100:3912:3e18:a17a:4a77:e0c2:5773). Even released Malayalam films are retrospectively changed, example: (CIDALEBRA20001).--] (]) 08:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::As per WP:CRYSTAL, ''Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Misplaced Pages does not predict the future''. These editors add speculative labels for unreleased films, which definitely constitute WP:CRYSTAL. Where are the ] for "ensemble cast"? --] (]) 09:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Just spot-checking here, the use of {{tq|ensemble cast}} in ] is directly supported by a reference in the article {{tq|In addition to Vijayaraghavan, the film boasts a talented ensemble cast}}. Given ] I could still see why some might be uncomfortable with that. However, as several users have added this descriptor, and it can at least in some cases be supported directly by reference, this would seem to fall within the realm of content issue and is probably best discussed at ]. There is also nothing preventing anyone from simply boldly removing the descriptor with an explanation from any article where it is thought inappropriate and subsequently discussing on a case-by-case basis if any reverts take place. ] (]) 23:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Mass rollbacking my bot ==
{{atop|result=Bot rollback successful. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Hi. I was running a task using ], which failed when it tripped a private edit filter. Could an admin do a mass rollback of its edits so far, while I wait for a response at ]? Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 09:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Do you want the two pages it created deleted? ] (]) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, that too. Sorry for the inconvenience. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{done}}! ] (]) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Question about ] ==
{{atop|1=Asked and answered. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Would ] and ] be covered under ] and ]? The source on ] notes Urartu has a {{tq|significant role in Armenian nationalism}}.

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

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

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

==Small technical question==
I was looking for a discussion at ANEW that I knew had happen (under "User: Policynerd3212 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Protection raised to EC)") as I had a link to the discussion. But when I searched the archives, this discussion didn't show up. So, I went to the archive page and it seems, somehow, between two edits, half the page disappeared even though that content deletion isn't visible in the edit.
In , you can easily see the discussion with Policy Nerd, it's the 31st discussion on the page that contains 35 discussions. But in by the archive bot, there are now only 15 discussions on the page, not 35 even though the edit doesn't show the content being removed. So, where did those 20 discussions go? Has this deletion of content from noticeboard archives been a regular thing?
Anyone have a clue what happened here and why the removal of content would not be visible in this edit? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Secondly, I want to highlight my response to the accusations of sock/meatpuppetry above. It can be found here: ]. I prefer not to add it piecemeal to the above discussion as there is enough confusion over the "evidence" for our supposed bad deeds, and I want to record set straight. ] (]) 17:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


: (Non-admin comment) the issue might be to do with the error message in this section:
*'''Clarification''' I consider ''"We believe that boycotting fundraising efforts of Misplaced Pages might compel it to raise billions via advertising and develop content of significantly better quality."'' an obvious declaration of war upon everything that Misplaced Pages stands for, as it is a call to impoverish and eventually destroy us, and reduce the remnants to prostituting our once-valued name and reputation to the great profit of companies like his own. --] &#x007C; ] 17:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::::: <blockquote>User:49.206.131.126 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)</blockquote>
::::: <blockquote>03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168561 by Adakiko (talk) The tile "Father of the nation" is sometimes used for Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in India but Part III, Article 18 of the Indian Constitution prohibits conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State.Cite error: A (see the help page). Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>
::::: <blockquote>Blocked – for a period of 1 month This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)</blockquote>
::::: <blockquote>References</blockquote>
::::: <blockquote>User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)</blockquote>
: ] (]) 05:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::So, you're saying that the content is still there, it's just been hidden for years because of the absence of a closing tag by the archiving bot? I wonder if this has happened on other archive pages. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::It's still not clear to me how to fix this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: Someone has fixed it (I wasn't willing to try it myself as it was well above my pay grade...) the only way I can think of for finding other cases of this would be searching other pages for the same error message but for all I know this could throw up thousands of false positives. ] (]) 06:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::Same problem at ] , 25 sections but only a few are showing up. - ] (]) 07:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Fixed now (thanks Daveosaurus). - ] (]) 07:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: You fixed the rest while I was looking for the other missing ref tag... there were at least two missing this time.
:::: For future reference (until someone comes up with an official techie explanation)... what was missing was a <code><nowiki></ref></nowiki></code> tag which meant massive chunks of content didn't show up. All that was needed for the fixes was to find out where the missing tag belonged and add it. ] (]) 07:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:*Well, thanks to whomever fixed this problem on this one archive page. It would be great if we could get a bot to scan for missing ref tags on archive pages. I know as an admin, I search admin noticeboards archives all of the time for previous reports and if even 10% of them are hidden because the archiving bot is cutting off tags when it reposts content, that could impact the work that we do. I know that this is a longterm issue to fix but we don't know how extensive it is. Maybe I'll put in a request on the Bot Noticeboard. But I appreciate editors who had some creative solutions here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


==Edit war with User:Mellk vs User:Rnd90==
==Proposal to require disclosure of paid editing==
{{atop|Matter handled. ] (]) 14:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
* I hope some of this good energy can be directed toward a workable policy. See ]. The gist of this policy is that disclosure is required. That would be the first step. If in time we see that disclosure is not sufficient, we can figure out what the next step would be. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
User Mellk has been repeatedly removing well-sourced information from the ] article. The removed content includes cited sources indicating possible violations of international laws by Mikhail Prokhorov. It appears that User Mellk may be attempting to conceal this information by removing it from the article.
:Might it be better to toss that up on the ] page where there is an attempt to centralize all this discussion, as an alternative proposal? --] (]) 23:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


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


:{{user|Rnd90}} was edit warring attempting to restore edit they made. I originally removed this writing in the edit summary that it does not belong in the first sentence. We also have IPs appearing to restore the edit as well. This looks like a pretty clear ]. ] (]) 13:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Here's some images from various queues that I am unable to delete, because I am the person who nominated them. If someone could evaluate them for possible deletion I would appreceiate it:
{{abot}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*<s>]</s> nomination withdrawn
*]
*]
*]
*]. Thank you, -- ] (]) 04:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


== Dubai chocolate ==
These are all handled. Thanks to those who helped out. -- ] (]) 20:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = I don't think the IPs are related to @]. This is otherwise a content dispute. Please discuss this on article talk and seek ] as needed. ] (]/]) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


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


There is an IP who made some changes while I was about to expand the article, so I saved my edit ignoring the edit by the IP because I also disagreed with the IP's edits. So sometime later an IP from the same range made a very similar edit, this time I explained it in detail why I don't think these edits are appropriate ] and even before I could save my edit on the talk page, ] also made such a similar edit. I saw that Dan Palraz even moved ] which was fortunately soon reverted as undiscussed move by ].
There is sort of a war going on in this article], There seems to be an issue with some edits on this page. 2 editors claim the IP editor has done something wrong. and has reverted the edits. I don't see anything wrong the page was dull before it now has life and images. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I don't want an edit war, so I will not edit this page now (and it's getting late, UTC+1). I'm always happy when others help improving articles, but not in the way it's happening currently. So I kindly ask Dan Palraz to revert their edits and discuss such edits on the talk page first and I'm seeking help from an administrator so this doesn't escalate to a real conflict. Thanks for reading this. ] (]) 22:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yup. There seems to be an edit war - what looks like a single (possibly banned?) user is adding material against consensus. The IP above appears to be the same user, and has made a personal attack in an edit summary. ] (]) 16:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Potential paid article writing (or just very bad form) by @] ==
I'm not that IP. I don't have anything to hide either, if I did I wouldn't have brought it here. I made a sarcastic comment based on what the other editor wrote he doesn't know if the ip was a banned editor or not. So I guess he also made a personal attack on someone instead of assuming good faith right? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 17:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:There is no absolute requirement to assume good faith if there is serious reason to believe otherwise. Please note that I have subsequently reverted your own edits, and have indicated that at this point the appropriate way to continue this matter, should you wish to do so, would be to start a discussion on the talk page regarding the material you seek to add, why you seek to add it, and the sources to support that material. ] (]) 17:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::So you're not the same IP, even though you're editing the same article from the same range? Pull the other one. If you have nothing to hide then ]. ]] 17:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Also I guess you are personally attacking me as well correct? I usually don't waste my time with Misplaced Pages because of petty things like this. I don't see anything wrong with the edits the IP user made, that is why I brought it here so Admins can get involve, LOOK INTO IT and stop the war. But since I'm being accused by you, I'm just going to leave it ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 17:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


{{atop
I just saw that John careter posted here as well should have come here before I reverted. Why are all these attacks coming from and how do you know I'm that IP?
:IP, you're now at 3RR (using the two IP addresses - we're not stupid y'know) - one more reversion and you'll be blocked. ]] 17:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC) | result = Nothing left to do here. ] (]) 00:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
}}
: cleary you are the smartest man alive, so smart you belive what ever pops into your head, why don't you prove that I'm the other IP and lets see how smart you are then. Stop making foolish acusations <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I have no evidence for paid article writing, but otherwise this is very bad form. A quick look at @]'s edit history is they almost always start with a sandbox article before moving to draft and then moving into mainspace, completely bypassing the ] process. And they seem to do so for only high profile ]s like with ], ], ], and ]. I took a look at Ivan Yuen's page and it read like a resume, both in the "glowing positive review" sense and in the "meaningless vague garbage" sense. I trimmed almost everything from it before changing my !vote to Delete on the AfD. A brief skim of ] notes the same problem, and the references listed almost exclusively describe ], who is her considerably more famous husband. ] (]) 22:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
"discussion on the talk page regarding the material you seek to add, why you seek to add it, and the sources to support that material" what are you talking abput I did't add anything to it what sources. the only thing that was added by that IP was an art gallery and images did you even look at the article before you attacked me for doing something wrong? Why didn't the others explain or list the reason behind why they did the reverts.] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 17:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Nevermind. Checkuser got to them first. You can archive this now ] (]) 22:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Also doest wiki keep the disputed edits there untill the issue has been resolved or a consensus had been reached? so how do any of you revert the edit I brought on here just like that without any reason as to why? Then treaten me Is that how its done on wikipedia? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 17:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{abot}}


== PayPal Honey edit warring ==
*I suggest you read ], and stop thinking we're idiots - you're at {{IP|150.108.61.128}}, the 'other' at {{IP|150.108.160.69}}. Same range, same location - making the same edits? 150.108.160.69 mentioned in their edit summary coming to an admin board - and yet it was 150.108.61.128 who brought it here. So unless it's a massive coincidence that two separate people from the Bronx both have the exact same opinion about such an obscure topic, you're very clearly the same person. ]] 17:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
{{atop|1=Page protected. - ] <sub>]</sub> 08:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Anybody willing to check in on ]? A lot of edit warring over unsourced content is happening right now due to some allegations by a YouTuber. I requested protection at ] but it doesn't look like anyone is answering any requests right now. ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 05:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


:Someone on PayPal Honey's talk page said that "all sources are user-generated", referring to how user-generated sources like YouTube aren't always reliable. While I'm not necessarily saying Megalag is wrong, I still think we should let more sources come out about this aside from social media and forums. - ] (]) 05:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
And the assertion that all that was added was images is demonstrably false: . ] (]) 17:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:I’ve just restored to the pre-edit war version. It doesn’t look like much constructive edits were lost, and once sources start publishing articles in this, we can readd it. ] (])<sup><span style="color: green"><small>Ping me!</small></span></sup> 05:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:It appears that at least one of the disruptive editors understands why this is a problem. A RPP sounds appropriate if you can get some action over there with a semi-protect at least. ]&thinsp;] 06:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Looks like in the last few minutes it was fully projected for 2 days. ]&thinsp;] 06:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:shouldn't this be reported at ] with prereq diffs? ] (]) 06:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I was considering sending the report to ANEW, but the Twinkle menu said I had to resolve the issue in a talk discussion first before I do so, so that's what I did. Looks like it worked though, don't you agree? ] <sup>(]) (])</sup> 06:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:also looks like user who was editwarring is a newbie who didn't know policy. we really shouldn't ] them, and newbie seems to show remorse and understanding . ] (]) 06:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor ==
:There's also the 206 IP. Semi-protection? ] (]) 18:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
{{atop
::Sounds reasonable to me. Probably can't do it myself, as an "involved" person per my last revert, but I would support it if someone else wanted to. ] (]) 18:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
| status = Forum shopping
:::It's probably a blocked or banned editor. The article has an odd editing history - accounts with maybe 4 edits only to this article, loads of IPs, an SPA or two with more than a handful of edits. Maybe Yalens will have a clue if he's around today or tomorrow. ] (]) 20:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


| result = Duplicate of ]. Please discuss there. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Wiki-PR ==
}}


Dear Wikipedians,
Given the seriousness of the problem Wiki-PR presents, I think it would be good if a public discussion about potential community responses to Wiki-PR was started. I'm sure discussions are taking place on private lists like the functionaries and arbitration lists, but I think that, since openness is one of our founding values, it would be good if potential community responses were discussed in open forums as well. I had not intended to start an AN section about Wiki-PR yet, but I'm worried that the discussion about WikiExperts a few sections up risks generating a lot of acrimony between people at a time when we are going to need to come together to figure out how to formulate a reasonable response to Wiki-PR as a community, and think that it may be better to start this discussion earlier rather than later. <small>As a side note, several journalists have also been in contact with me in recent days about Wiki-PR, and at least one piece that provides new and interesting information about Wiki-PR is likely to be published on monday.</small>


I hope you’re doing well. I wanted to inform you about a new contributor @], despite lacking experience, has repeatedly attempted to vandalize multiple articles. These articles were properly aligned with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines, but the contributor seemed unwilling to understand or respect their adherence to the policies.
Here's a summary of some of what we know about Wiki-PR so far from publicly available sources, including the signpost article, the daily dot article, and the SPI/LTA case pages:
*Wiki-PR has successfully inserted a large number of articles in to the encyclopedia by using an extensive network of sock and meatpuppets. Most of these articles have not yet been detected, and may number as high as 12,000.
*Besides damage their direct work has done, the case has also led directly to the effective retirement of some long-time respected editors, including ].
*Many of these articles covered non-notable subjects, and a number have been deleted. More articles still exist than have been deleted. Most Wiki-PR articles that were deleted were deleted through the Morning277 SPI, which is now effectively closed. I don't want to speak for the checkusers since I am not one, but I think it's a safe assumption that the closing of the SPI was related to at least two main factors (a) the number of IP ranges WikiPR uses makes it hard to impossible to take effective technical action against them, and (b) the workload involved in trying to do so was also quite high.
*Although most discovered articles were quite low profile, Wiki-PR has apparently also worked on a significant number of articles about higher profile topics, apparently including articles related to ], ], and ].
*The Wikimedia Foundation is either contemplating taking some form of legal action against Wiki-PR, or otherwise expecting that this will turn in to a legal issue in the near future. The Wikimedia Foundation has also stated that, although they have a part to play in dealing with this issue, a community response is also needed.


I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
Although I hope WMF is able to find a way to stop ongoing damage to the encyclopedia, I doubt they will be able to correct the damage that has already occurred, and I suspect that the community will need to find a way to do so. I also feel like this incident will force us to re-examine our approach to paid-editing and find a way to prevent another covert entity of Wiki-PR's size forming and doing the same thing again a year from now, but I feel like discussions of how we will react to Wiki-PR and how we will stop it from happening again should probably be held separately.


Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
I don't have perfect ideas about how to deal with the past (and ongoing) disruption caused by Wiki-PR, so I figured for now I would just throw this up as an open thread. It's clear that a community response to Wiki-PR's activities is necessary - what form can that community response take?
] (]) 19:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:The best solution I can imagine is a clear policy of some sort effectively dealing with paid editors, and some sort of mechanism, like maybe through OTRS or maybe this noticeboard?, for publicists and individuals who might want their articles improved, to be able to either indicate that they have reliable sources dealing with them that they would want considered for inclusion in the article or otherwise indicating that they think their existing articles might be unbalanced, and, maybe, an informal group of editors willing to tackle such matters. There would be questions, reasonably, about whether such a group of editors would necessarily be indicated to bring articles up to GA, FA, or whatever, or whether they should simply work to bring it to C or B, depending on the amount of material available. Just a few early ideas, anyway. ] (]) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
::I'd like to see the diff of notable, relevant, sourced content kept from the mainspace because the originator revealed a COI. ]] 20:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:A good partial solution is to be clear on what constitutes a reliable source for business topics. These groups depend on sub-standard publications being accepted as reliable sources. A clear guideline on the quality of publications that are required for establishing notability and inclusions of claims in business-entity articles will help alleviate this issue. Instead of keeping the bar low and concluding that any piece from a news agency is reliable enough (even when these can easily be promotional pieces or otherwise inserted as a favour for the company or its agents), we can set the bar higher and limit this to general news coverage in select high-quality publications (Businessweek, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc.), and not coverage in low-quality publications, nor blog, opinion, or promotional coverage even in the high-quality publications. --<font face="georgia">]&nbsp;</font><font face="georgia" size="1">(],&nbsp;])</font> 20:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


Thankyou! ]] 15:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
* There's a double edged problem. (1) Paid editors can be annoying, troublesome, or edit contrary to our content policies. (2) Misplaced Pages articles about businesses can have a negative impact on the business if the article is out of date, erroneous, or poorly written. If we are going to ban paid editing, then we have to put in place a process to fix articles promptly if a business complains. If we don't have the resources to operate such a system, then we should leave open the possibilities that businesses can "self-help". One possible solution would be to have a noticeboard where paid editors could disclose what projects they are working on, and their work could be reviewed. If specific paid editors caused trouble, we could be pretty quick to ban them. If paid editors chose to operate sub-rasa, we could have a policy to ban them whenever discovered. So, the policy would be "Disclose paid (or COI) editing so we can monitor your activities, or else you will be banned on the spot if it is discovered that you've been editing on the sly." I think the first step is to ensure transparency. If we implement that and it does not work well, I will be open to consider stricter measures. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:First of all, you need to inform Kriji Sehamati. I have done so. This report, as well as the AfD's linked on your talk page all appear to be generated by LLMs. This appears to be a dispute about AfDs.] (]) 15:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Supposedly blocked editor appears unblocked ==
* One more thing... This noticeboard isn't going to establish a new policy. After people make some comments, you should organize an RFC, and let that run for a month. That could result in the formation of a policy. The above threads suggesting bans of paid editing services should be tabled until there is solid policy to stand on. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
{{atop
::I know this noticeboard isn't going to establish a new policy. I was more hoping this thread could be used to discuss ways to react to the immediate problem at hand: that there's a network of socking undisclosed paid editors who have created or monitored as many as 12,000 articles, who are active in at least some big name areas, whose actions have driven away multiple long time prolific editors, and whose activities are ongoing. I think an immediate response of some sort to WikiPR's activities likely needs to happen before serious discussions of long-term policy adjustments, and with the SPI basically shut down, I think potential community responses should be discussed somewhere publicly other than Jimmy's talk page and the signpost talk page - this seemed like an appropriate forum. ] (]) 20:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
| result = Globally locked accounts may not have local blocks, but still cannot edit. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the first step is to put in place a paid editing policy. Then we go to the known paid editor agencies, and point out this policy and ask them to confirm that they will comply. Then, we can be on very solid footing if further undisclosed paid editing occurs, and the agencies may find themselves in hot water if something goes wrong and one of their clients sues them for violating Misplaced Pages's policies, thereby damaging the client's reputation. Our policies do have real world consequences. Once more than one person knows about something, it's not really secret. Paid editors may think their activities are secret, but sooner or later the activity could (and probably will be) exposed. Right now they can hide behind the excuse, "there's no clear policy on paid editing." Once we take away that excuse, they'll have to comply with our rules, or else they'll be taking a rather large and stupid risk. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
}}
::::With several hundred blocked socks, I'm not sure why it would be necessary to wait to discuss further action specifically re: Morning277/WikiPR in particular for us to have a paid editing policy in place. We've categorically established that the people behind the operation engage in systematic sockpupppetry to avoid scrutiny, sockpuppetry to manipulate AfD's, sockpuppetry to make it look like multiple users are pushing for the same set of edits, etc. Waiting to take further action against Morning277/WikiPR until we have a more firm paid editing policy in place is, quite literally, saying it's okay to violate any ENWP policy you want - but only if you are a paid editor. These people can't hide behind the excuse "there's no clear policy on paid editing," because there are loads of clear policies that they ''are'' violating.


] is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of ] are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Getting a comprehensive paid editing policy in place is going to take a lot of time and work. Waiting to get that policy in place before we try to start formulating a response to a particular problem that has already resulted in the loss of multiple long-term prolific contributors to the encyclopedia, significant damage to parts of the encyclopedia, etc, is not something that we want to do. The problem is not paid editing, and we need to come up with a community response to Wiki-PR faster than we'll be able come up with a comprehensive paid editing policy. ] (]) 22:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
:My comment seems broken. The wikitext is <syntaxhighlight lang="">
] is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of ] are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.
</syntaxhighlight>For me, and in a private tab, the piped link does not render, and I just see <syntaxhighlight lang="">
User:ArxhentiVirzi is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.
</syntaxhighlight> <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::I've fixed it for you. You were adding this page to the category. ] (]) 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:The account is ] which is why there is no local block showing. ] (]) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, always look at the Contributions page to check and see if an editor is blocked or globally blocked. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== subversion ==
:::::For WikiPR, have at it. If they are found to be socking, block them all, end of story. You don't need to reference paid editing to do that. Sock puppetry is a blockable offense. My concern is that we don't start banning people merely for paid editing without proper disclosure. We should make it be policy that paid editors have to disclose, then we can ban anybody who doesn't. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
{{hat|1=Global block evasion. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::::::The intended point of this section was to discuss potential community responses to Wiki-PR in specific, not broader questions of paid-editing. It's been established that Wiki-PR, in particular, is violating our policies at a colossal scale, one that is likely unaddressable through normal SPI procedures, but one that is, because of its sheer scale, important to address. I'm not sure how best to address it, and thus put the question forward here. This is not intended to be a general "let's block all paid editors" thread, and I would request that people generally attempt to confine discussion to the narrow question of "Wiki-PR is a problem, what measures can we take to begin to address it?". An issue this large needs discussion of potential solutions at a public community forum; ignoring it isn't very likely to help it. ] (]) 22:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
{{atop|1=We are done here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
This ] is sabotaging some editions Like and and . Specially one Which mentioned with significant sources. thanks for the corporation ] (]) 04:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Hi everyone.
*This really needs to be an RFC that is widely advertised and hosted at a more appropriate place. I would suggest an RFC on a dedicated subpage, but ] is another option. I would also like to take a moment to shamelessly plug my own ] ] (]) 22:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
: has been and is attempting to preserve their disruptive edits. Their edits include promotional content for a specific individual. ] (]) 04:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::who were blocked? Are you have argue with somebody or something? And you should prove that is promotional! ] (]) 04:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::IP blocked for evasion of the global block. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:(c/e) This appears to be related to edits made by ] which were manually revered by ]. Tismar was for "Long-term abuse". ]&thinsp;] 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{hab}}


== Merry Christmas! ==
** Agreed, not just on these specific instances but exactly what we expect from paid editors. There's at least three different convos, one here, one at ] and one at ], and they're having conflicting advice. I strongly suggest centralizing what policy/guideline change (if any) needs to be made in light of the paid editing issues. --] (]) 05:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Atop|result=Lovely.--] (]) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)<br>Thank you, MolecularPilot. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 20:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Although it's certainly true that a centralized policy discussion about the issues surrounding paid editing is necessary, I would suggest that it's probably not the greatest idea in the world to not have a separate discussion about an appropriate response to this particular set of incidents. Perhaps I should have posted this at AN/I instead of AN, but I see a whee little bit of a problem with an active group of paid editors who have created or effected thousands of articles including some about significant subjects who have in doing so violated almost every blockable policy we have and there being no public effort to block of any of their accounts, re-NPOV any of the effected articles, or otherwise respond in any form. ] (]) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:I agree with those who think a formal, centralized discussion is needed to promulgate policy. But I also think ] was right to raise this issue. It has already identified the need to have some separate discussions. I won't speak for Kevin, but I don't see evidence that he is opposed to those discussions taking place, he is simply trying to ascertain what can be done now, for this specific situation. Yes, we need a policy on paid editing. That will take months. Surely that isn't the only thing that can be done.--]] 16:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:For example, we have policies that allow edits, even otherwise valid ones, to be removed if know to be by a sockpuppet. I gather that we have passed the time when it is feasible to determine whether the ips are socks or not, but if we have a sense of which articles have been edited, we can make sure the edits are compliant. If the sources are suspect, or non-existent, we can take a hard line on the content addition.--]] 16:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


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


== suggestion ==
Dear adminisator,
{{Atop|This complaint has no merit.--] (]) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}


Suggestion of temporary block of User:ActivelyDisinterested
I noticed dehonesting text in article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Al-Fatiha. In the begiijig there is writen "for the homosexual rights organization". I tried to remove this part as its quite very dehonesting the serious article which is for 1.6 bilion people very important. I will understant your will to keep it there but just want to appel on your heart to remove this part. thanks you very much. Abdel Malik
As user add incorrect information, comment wrong behavior edit with not reliable sources.
PS: i font have anythink against other sexual orientations but this should pe always a personal way to everybody himself not a public show. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The ] linking to the homosexual rights organization is provided because it shares the same name (i.e. ''al-Fatiha'') as the chapter of the Qur'an. To assist people who end up at the ] article but are actually looking for the information about the ], that text and link need to be at the top of the article. -- ''']''' 00:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::Yeah, we have lots of hatnotes of that kind because a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, type in a short text when they're looking for something which has either a longer name or is here included in a different name, and we try to make it easier for those people to find the article they're actually looking for this way. Other articles which have similar hatnotes which some editors regret, but which we more or less need to make ourselves as useful to as many editors as possible, can be found at ] and a large number of other articles. ] (]) 01:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


Thanks ] (]) 15:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:ActivelyDisinterested explained to DerryGer120 about that removed multiple editors' comments. DerryGer120 that they removed comments, even though the diff clearly shows that they did. It was likely unintentional, which is what ActivelyDisinterested was trying to point out. ]&nbsp;] 16:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive top|The article got its day in court, hopefully a lesson has been learned by everyone involved. Nothing stops a registered user from making a hopeless nomination, it is pretty much common courtesy to do so on behalf of IP users so long as the nomination would not sensitive vandalism or disruption. ] (]) 19:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)|status=resolved}}
:You are required to notify any editor that you report to this noticeboard. I have notified ActivelyDisinterested for you this time. ]&nbsp;] 16:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
:I left this message on DerryGer120, pointing out that their edit to WT:V had removed comments by other editors. I ] that this was just a mistake. After DerryGer120's denial I followed up with this message to explain how the edit history works to show them making the edit, and again explaining that I assumed that this wasn't their intention.
:I don't have anything to add, DerryGer120 is still a ] and I take no issue with them raising this here. If anyone has any thoughts on how I could have worded my message any better I'm always open to suggestions, communication online can easily be misconstrued. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Abot}}


== Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? ==
I wanted to nominate ] for AfD as 'not notable' (after trying prod), but I can't proceed as an IP. So can you please make ] and do whatever else is needed, thx. ] (]) 06:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Moved discussion to|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI?| ] (]/]) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}}
:I'm not going to do this. Given the detailed entry in the ], and the list of positions the subject held, I don't think such a nomination would have the slightest chance of succeeding. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 06:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::I didn't ask for an opinion, I asked for a technical task. ] (]) 06:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Editors are not obliged to complete deletion nominations for IPs. They can, but they don't have to. As someone who does sometimes complete such nominations, I would be happy to complete it if I thought it had any chance of succeeding. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 07:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
::Hut, you reverted me. Do you not understand "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed"?
::Perhaps you think you are 'special' and that does not apply to you?
::I did not ask for your ''opinion'', I asked <admins> to perform a routine adminny task. Is all.
::When admins start making decisions like that, outside of policy/consensus, we're '''''really''''' fucked. ] (]) 07:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I understand perfectly. The notice can be removed because there is no deletion discussion. As an unregistered user you don't have the right to start AfD discussions. The most you can do is ask that a registered user start one for you, and that registered editor would be well advised to use common sense in deciding whether to do so. In this case the subject clearly passes the ] and a nomination with a rationale consisting of "not notable" would be frivolous. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 07:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:I was about to remove the anon's earlier prod of the article but got interrupted. I agree an AfD is unlikely to succeed, but my understanding is that anons are allowed to nominate articles for AfD, and the procedure for their doing so is set out at ]. They cannot complete the nomination, but they can ask for a logged in editor to complete it for them.-<span style="font-family:cursive; color:grey;">]</span> 07:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


== Vanished users holding user rights as of 25-12-2024 ==
::'''As an unregistered user you don't have the right to start AfD discussions''' ??? O_O


Hi. The following vanished users hold the mentioned user rights, some of them are also globally locked. I guess their rights should be removed?
::You've lost the plot entirely. See ], why don't ya?
{| class="wikitable"
::Where does it say that "The notice can be removed because there is no deletion discussion"? Or did you perhaps just make that up, and hope the stoopid IP wouldn't know better? Please answer. ] (]) 07:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
!Username!!Last edit!!User rights
::: You of course understand the word "right" was obviously meant in the technical sense, not in the authority sense ... like "reviewer right" and "admin rights" ... or is that a huge ] in your pocket? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 16:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
|-
As the creator of that page, '''].''' I suggest we take this conversation there and discuss the content. ] (]) 08:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
|{{Noping|Vanished user 1324354}}||20241220184536||autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer
:I have closed the AFD per ]. ]] 15:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
|-
{{archive bottom}}
|{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user 752595fd077b7cc069aced5f592aa938}}||20241122065248||pending changes reviewer, rollbacker
|-
|{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user eb1ee62d1149327ec5c6d6ee42f08205}}||20241113070034||autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer
|-
|{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user e2bceb05e0c43dd19cc50e3291d6fac5}}||20241005122230||autopatrolled
|-
|{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user 0e40c0e52322c484364940c7954c93d8}}||20241003115931||ipblock-exempt
|-
|{{done}}{{Noping|Renamed user 6907cec52323a7d54b85dc472c6b6619}}||20240501040754||ipblock-exempt, pending changes reviewer
|-
|{{Noping|Renamed user tk7QEzr9HZuLSk}}||20210417225619||autopatrolled
|-
|{{Noping|Renamed user v08an9234vu}}||20191001201326||rollbacker
|-
|{{Noping|Renamed user efB5zCgPvkrQ7C}}||20091006044722||autopatrolled, rollbacker
|}
Thanks! -- ] (]) 08:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


:We typically don't remove advanced privileges from editors that are blocked, globally or locally, unless they are admins. I can't point to an RFC where this decision was arrived at, I just know that this has been the custom in the past. Personally, I don't care if this practice changes but I think this change is worth a discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
== Outing ==
::I'm not sure what proportion of vanished editors ever return, but lots of blocked editors do, and it makes sense to me that we only remove userrights that people need to lose and that we do it when they are blocked or vanished. Take Autopatrolled as an example, plenty of content creators who get this are people who don't always "play nice". Making such people autopatrolled doesn't just make new page patrol more efficient, it also reduces the risk of friction between patrollers and these editors. It can also help if you need to know how an article got through NPP, and I suspect more commonly, think of the scenario where a major contributor to an article you are looking at is now blocked; If the blocking admin has left them with either reviewer or Autopatrolled status you can be pretty sure that their block isn't over copyvio or some other content issue. Conversely if they've lost those rights you might want to be suspicious of their edits. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 10:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
{{atop|Thank you all for useful feedback; the user has been re-blocked as a sock.--] (]) 05:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)}}
:::This makes a lot of sense. They can always be restored if it is ever appropriate. ] ] 12:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I am afraid I might screwed up smth and I need advise on how to proceed. Yesterday I blocked ] for outing. They have an idea that another user (]) is affiliated with a certain organization and is therefore editing in COI. They went to the user page of Martinvl and asked them to identify themselves as a member of the organization. The user asked the edits to be revdeld (not by me). Then they went to the talk page of one of the pages Martinvl edited and added a notice that he is a COI editor. Martinvl reverted, they re-added. At this point I reverted again and advised them to read ]. They did, decided that it is not applicable to their situation, and went again to the talk page of Martinvl and ask them to admit that they are a COI editor. Then I blocked them and revdel the edits.
*5 of these are vanished under the new process, and there is no way for them to return, I've removed from those. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*I've got no concerns about de-grouping the others just to not pollute statistics. I run across these from time to time when doing group inactivity cleanups, and have removed without any complaints then. This is certainly differnt from a normal "blocked" user, especially as vanishing has evolved to be one-way. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
*:*: Removed the remaining rights. I'd also like to put on the record that I find the entire concept of vanishing to be silly - if you want to stop editing then stop editing. ] ] 00:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== I would like to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned user Grundle2600 ==
Now, they posted an unblock request (still to be acted upon) and point out to ] which indeed says they should post at the talk page of the COI editor and on the talk page of the article. They say the guideline does not limit the number of times they should do it, and therefore they got blocked for nothing. I also got an impression if they get unblocked they are determined to continue, but I do not know for sure of course.
{{atop|1=Thanks DoubleGrazing. Noting else to be done here. -- ] (]) 10:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)}}
I am coming there to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned ].


It has been 14 years since my "indefinite" ban, and I just wanted to see if that's long enough for me to be able to openly edit the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.
I do not have much experience with outing, and I would appreciate some help in this case. I do not have problems to unblock the user, but I am sure they should not behave in the same way as they did before being blocked. Thank you in advance.--] (]) 08:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*I'm not an admin, but I'm inclined to back you on this one, at least initially. Attempting to edit-war a controversial notice onto an established editor's talk page, when said user is currently in good standing, is bad enough. Trying to force a discussion about said issue, despite the clear fact that Martinvl did not wish to discuss it, is also very poor form. R.stickler has yet to actually provide any evidence of this claimed association, am I correct? If that's the case, then this COI claim is indeed an attempt at outing (although a pretty lame and half-arsed one) ] ] 10:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*: Indeed, I have not seen any evidence of the association (and the evidence is not on Martinvl's user page).--] (]) 10:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*:: On ], R.stickler has offered to provide the evidence of the association to trusted parties, but has not posted the evidence publically as he says that to do so would reveal Martinvl's identity and that would indeed be outing. To me, this doesn't sound unreasonable. - ] (]) 12:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*::: (This was posted after my reply here). I would still at this point appreciate a second opinion (formally they posted an unblock request anyway).--] (]) 12:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*:::: I too am not an admin, but as far as I can see it there are two questions requiring a second opinion:
::::: 1 the block
::::: 2 the revdel
::::: - ] (]) 12:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


I have made several hundred edits with this particular account over the last several months, without any problems other than a few very minor messages on my talk page.
:It may become known that a user is an ], an ], a member of the ], or even a member of the ] but that does not justify anyone insisting that they reveal any such affiliation when editing articles on ], ], ], or ].
:I don't think affiliation with an ethnic group, religion, political party or other organization should justify COI tags or challenges for articles about things that those groups are involved in. Obviously we can challenge concrete claims. This should perhaps be made even clearer at ]. --] (]) 19:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


If you ban this account, I will understand.
As a reminder, administrators should '''not''' use any options labelled "FOR USE BY OVERSIGHTERS". If you ''think'' you ''might'' be ] something covered by the ] policy, use an innocuous reason in the RD summary and ]. ''']<font color="darkgreen">]</font>''' 14:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
: Not sure it applies to my case but done that anyway, thanks.--] (]) 14:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Valid block per ]. <small>]</small> 14:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:It does seem that someone created this account and named it ] for this sole purpose. ] (]) 17:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:: Could you please remind us, NebY, when the account in question was created, and when there was first any interaction with Martinvl? I'm not convinced that your (and Martinvl's) SPA allegation is proven. - ] (]) 17:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:::I can't prove it - not from the evidence I have to hand. But I have seen a number of attacks on Martinvl over the last couple of years and they often start with a few edits to establish bona fides as an editor followed by a sustained campaign culminating in the blocking of the account and considerable wiki-lawyering. This history of seven edits in February and five edits in July followed (starting in September) by nothing but attacks on and arguments with Martinvl followed by a block and wiki-lawyering fits that pattern. ] (]) 18:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
*The comment at "17:02, 14 October 2013" at the bottom of ] is clearly designed to encourage onlookers to do their own analysis to out an editor. That is not an acceptable use of any page on Misplaced Pages and talk page access should be revoked ASAP. ] (]) 19:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:*R.stickler made exactly twelve edits before first at Martin's talk. The third edit, and several others in the first twelve, demonstrate knowledge of internal policy that you'd never encounter simply by reading the encyclopedia (project shortcuts, e.g. ]), and yet the , just two days before he links WP:ELN, asks a question that you'd only ask if you're completely new to MediaWiki or trying to appear completely new. You could learn shortcuts like WP:ELN by editing as an IP, but then you'd understand the basic workings of MediaWiki — the only way you'd make this combination of edits is if you're trying to look new when you're not. Clearly a sock of ''someone'', and harassment is not one of the ]. ] (]) 21:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


If you don't ban this account, then at least I can be open about who I really am.
Good block; looks more and more like ]. That username still, um, sticks in my craw. ]] 00:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

] (]) 09:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:This confession will lead to your block. Why don't you file an unblock request on your original account? It is more likely to have success than coming to AN, confessing, and hoping no one will care. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 10:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comment.

::I'm willing to get blocked. If that's what their policy is, then so be it.

::Misplaced Pages claims to be the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.

::] (]) 10:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:...but before doing so, you may want to think of a convincing explanation for the history of socking ]. -- ] (]) 10:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes. I hope they see all those great edits I made with my sock puppet accounts. ] (]) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Lots more at https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Grundle2600

::I am proud of those edits.

::] (]) 10:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I can't be sure whether you really are Grundle2600's sock, or just want everyone to think so, but either way it seems you're effectively asking to be blocked. {{done}}
:::(Obviously others should feel free to unblock, if this turned out not to be warranted.) -- ] (]) 10:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}} {{abot}}


== ] ==
==Folken de Fanel==


I think ] should be preserved at the AfD's talk page, since it includes necessary context for the comment by {{user|Nurg}}. –] (]]) 15:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm here with a simple issue. While attempting to continue a major overhaul and merging of '']'' content I noticed that Folken de Fanel made 36 redirects in the court of 22 minutes from 23:42 on October 4 to 00:04 October 5. Each of these redirects bore the edit summary "restore merge per a ]". Whether or not the previous consensus from 3 years ago is valid, the edit summary is very misleading because Folken de Fanel did not carry out any merger at all. It was just a blank and redirect, resulting in dozens of pages being redirect loops, breaking over a hundred pages of links and removing a large amount of content under a misleading edit summary. I've gone and rollbacked these redirects; not on the grounds of contesting them as "keeps", but on keeping the content up while an ''actual'' merging process goes on. I have zero intention of keeping these pages beyond the time needed for merging in. I ask that these pages remain so Folken de Fanel does not promptly re-redirect them out and threaten me with ANI. I am not seeking any action against Folken; I do not have the time or energy to argue. These pages will be likely all gone within the week. Thank you for reading. ] (]) 03:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


:Admins have access to look at the page history if needed; there's no rule we have to preserve any portion of a deleted article for generic public access, including its talk page. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">''']''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''(])''</small></span> 17:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:Redirecting does not remove content. If these are truly pages that were up for AFD years ago, and the results were merge + redirect, and no one bothered to merge in those three years, FdF is in the right to simply redirect - any editor can still get at the old content and add what is necessary. --] (]) 03:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:: They were not AFDed, they were discussed briefly three years ago in that link. Mass breaking content including links and entire groups of pages is not "merging"; Folken de Fanel did not merge the content as his edit summary stated. I've already begun redirecting them again. But I must sleep and more will be taken care of tomorrow. Also, the original mergers were contentious and not redirected out or had additional discussion prior to Folken's re-reverting. If you check that link, you will see I have re-redirected (kept categories) the page out again. This is a brief and temporary solution to not break the rest of the Forgotten Realms content area. Whether or not I can recover the content in four-five additional steps means little when hundreds of readers will miss out unnecessarily. I find this option the best route and not deter, confuse or otherwise hinder readers who seek out the page's content until I can tidy the rest up on a list. ] (]) 04:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Do you have a better justification for your use of ]? I don't see that it was necessary or allowed by the guideline. ] (]) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::Masem: really? Chris has been rapidly taking care of all this in the last couple of weeks. And you've no problem with someone using a clearly false edit summary? Oyi. ] (]) 04:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::: How is "restore merge per a ]" "clearly false"? I don't see an implication in "restore merge" that FdF is redoing the merges at the list article. ] is a valid wikilink to an archived discussion. The articles I spot-checked are in the discussed list. ] (]) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::Two reasons: #1 the articles were never merged, just redirected as far as I can tell. I see no evidence of any attempt to merge either years ago or this time. #2 Even if there was a merge at some point, redirecting isn't "restoring a merge" because, again, there is no merging being done. ] (]) 05:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC) <small>clarified ] (]) 06:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)</small>
:::::: 1) Redirecting without copying anything is allowed by the last paragraph of ]. The wording dates back to {{diff|Help:Merging|25677951|25421535|2005}} and {{diff|Help:Merging|134536006|134535095|2007}}. You participated in the 2010 discussion, and you had 3 years to raise the issue with Neelix or edit the articles directly, as {{diff|WP:Administrators' noticeboard|577343727|577342454|FdF pointed out}}. Requiring FdF to investigate and be responsible for Neelix's 3-year-old edits is unreasonable. 2) An edit summary like "revert to redirect per a previous consensus" would be more precise, but I think that describing FdF's "restore merge" as "clearly false" – in the context of your other comments, implying willful deception – is a gross exaggeration. ] (]) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::Merging does not require any material to be brought into the main article, if none of that material is new or appropriate, as long as that fact is checked. And as long as it is simply a redirect and not a delete, recreate and redirect, the content before the merge+redirect can be reviewed without admin assistance and brought in if the editor believes the fact was missed. --] (]) 06:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::That's an interesting assertion, but completely unsupported by ]: "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page. Merging creates a redirect from the source page(s) to the destination page, with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page." If no content was copied, then it wasn't a merger, it was a redirection without merging. While a merge includes a redirect as part of the process, what differentiates a merge from a redirect is the copying and pasting. ] (]) 06:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::That's an interesting bit of wiki-lawyering there. Don't think it's been merged properly? ]. It's in the edit history. Which is still there. So, you know, not a deletion. --] | ] 11:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::Not sure what you can actually merge, though, since all but one I've looked at were entirely sourced to TSR or Wizards of the Coast publications. In other words, nothin' but primary sources. --] | ] 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::Still not the point. There were 36 edit summaries that claimed he was merging stuff. No merging actually happened. He could have said "redirecting" and we'd not be here. But he didn't and we are. There is a strong difference between merging and redirecting, that's not wiki-lawyering.] (]) 13:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::No, not really. Redirecting an article to another where the appropriate encyclopedic content - in the eye of the person doing this - is already present, is a merge; the topic that was redirected still has content available about it in WP. It would not be a merge if the person redirected the article to a target article that made zero mention of the topic that was redirected, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. --] (]) 13:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::So you are saying that merging something, in the Misplaced Pages meaning of the word, doesn't actually involve merging anything? While Misplaced Pages certainly has terms of art that are like that, ] says quite the opposite. So your definition doesn't seem to work for the English meaning of the word "merge" nor the Misplaced Pages meaning. Could you explain why you think your definition is correct? ] (]) 13:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::The WP definition, which matches the real world version is "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page." Doesn't say anything about retaining information from every page involved in the process (unless you're wikilawyering the language). The only outcome that I would expect of a merge is that the topic that is merged in is not reduced to a single mention in passing: whether this means the topic has its own section, paragraphs, one or more sentences, or a line in a table, it doesn't matter (a mention in passing would simply require a redirect). If this means that information from one page is duplicative or not appropriate encyclopedic to be inserted into the target page, so be it. --] (]) 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Wow, I'm wondering if you just stopped reading at that point. WP:MERGE goes on to say "with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page". So yes, it does say something about retaining information. As does the English definition (combine or cause to combine to form a single entity, notice the word combine...). Are you seriously claiming that a redirect is a merge? ] (]) 14:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::::If some of the content in the article(s) to be merged already exists in the target article, then yes, some of the content has been put into the target article already. If that then leaves content that is deemed unencyclopedic and is left out, then that's what happens. (Mind you, the language "copy and pasted" is not really correct because more than likely a merge that does add more from a merged article will be edited appropriately to fit the flow of the target article during or after the merge - the attribution path should still be followed when doing so.) --] (]) 15:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::So assuming a redirect target has some information on the topic, any redirect is a merge? That is taking the English language (and Misplaced Pages terminology) and bending it so far on it's ear it's amazing. Our policies speak of redirection and merging as different things on a regular basis. I'm having a hard time coming up with an example where a redirect from an AfD wouldn't also be a merge in your use of the terminology. I'm starting to feel like you are just yanking my chain. ] (]) 15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::{{outdent}}A redirect (as a close action from an AFD/discussion) w/o a merge means that an editor can go and blindly replace the page contents with the right #REDIRECT, not having to worry about attribution, existing content, or the like. It may be worthwhile to consider anchors in the target article as to help the redirect link land at the right spot, but that's it. A merge w/ redirect means that the editor performing the merge should review the contents of the to-be-merged article(s) and target and carefully determine what, if any, content should be brought over, and if any content is brought in, add in tracking for attribution, before making the target page a redirect.
::Yes, that means that a merge that doesn't bring over any information before the redirect is going to look from a 60,000 ft level like a straight redirect, but that's where AGF comes into play, that the editor performing the merge made a judgement call that no ''new'' information from the page in question was needed in the target page. And that's why merge + redirects are tons better than deletion, because ''any'' editor can go back and pull out details they felt were important that the merging editor might have omitted and add them after the merge. (I would argue we would be in a similar place if FdF pulled one sentence and added it to the target articles before redirecting, with claims "he didn't merge enough!"). If FdF did this blindly, without any prior discussion at all, sure, I would question the motives behind it, but here, FdF is doing an action discussed before, with changes that were undone in the interim. --] (]) 15:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::My last reply on this: If nothing is merged, it ain't a merge. That's pretty obvious in my book. And as the action discussed before was a merge which never was implemented. ] (]) 17:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::::All I can say is that you were part of the original discussion back in 2010, Hobit, if you had any objection about the amount of content moved, you had all the time to say it, or to move more content yourself. You never did, so I had no reason to assume you were not in agreement. All I did was to restore the 2010 status quo. You obviously have your own view on what a merge should be, but I see nothing here in opposition with ], so this discussion doesn't belong at ANI.] (]) 21:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::... none of which deals at all with the fact that Masem has asserted something so utterly ridiculous that it defies common sense. He's asserting that redirecting an article to a target that ''already'' contains something relevant and not adding or changing any of that content at the target article constitutes a merge, contra the definition that I quoted, and (as Hobit pointed out) he selectively re-quoted. Masem's behavior in this matter is clearly worse than yours, Folken, because you could simply say you were going too fast and ''assuming'' that the merges had previously been done, while Masem's argument is something that's meritless, has been pointed out as meritless, and yet he maintains that it is the definition is wrong, rather than he. ] (]) 04:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::Common sense would suggest that merging involves taking some portion of one thing and including it in another. But reality is not that clear-cut, especially when more than two articles are involved in the merger. We could imagine a discussion closing with consensus to merge articles A,B,C,D into article X. Now suppose that the merging editor finds that article C just repeats one of the sections of article A, and that article D is nothing but tinfoil hat gibberish sourced to the article creator's personal blog. In that case, after the merge there will be nothing of articles C and D in the merge product but I would say the whole thing still does constitute a merge. Wouldn't you? This D&D situation is the extreme end of that scale, where a lot of articles have gone into the merge discussion and ''some'' content from ''some'' of the articles has found its way into the merge target, but nothing or very little from each individual article. I agree that this is more like mass redirection than a merge, but calling it a ''very'' selective merge is not totally off the wall. (And a ''very'' selective merge is exactly what this content needs, not wholesale Ctrl-C Ctrl-V). ] <sub>]</sub> 05:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::::::(edit) and the last paragraph of ] ''explicitly'' states that it's OK to simply redirect instead of merging if there is no mergeable content. ] <sub>]</sub> 05:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you - that's exactly what MERGE says on the tin - combining two or more articles into one. It doesn't say a minimum amount of an article to be merge has to survive, only that we keep attribution history and redirect so that all the prior edits can be traced. There's a distict lack of good faith here in assuming what FdF is doing is purposely harmful. --] (]) 05:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
: Better history links:
:* Folken de Fanel's
:* ChrisGualtieri's
: Spot-checking these articles, I see a pattern where ] proposes and performs the merger in October 2010, and an IP editor restores in December 2011. ] (]) 05:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::Could you identify where the merging was done? I didn't notice any merging at all. I might have missed it, but I don't think Neelix made a single edit involving content. ] (]) 05:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::: Neelix did merge the lead of {{oldid|Circle of Greater Powers|388351909|Circle of Greater Powers}} to the lead of the list ({{diff|List of Forgotten Realms deities|390887909|387612490|overall diff}}, ). The last paragraph of ] allows for redirecting without copying, but asks that it be clearly identified in the edit summary. I prefer precise edit summaries, as they make ] checking easier. ] (]) 04:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
*Folken de Fanel has a long history of problematic behavior, which was cataloged at a recent ]. He has been blocked on multiple language Wikipedias for edit warring, including this one. He is indefinitely banned on fr.wiki, his home language wiki, and remains indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry on it.wiki. He's had plenty of chances to shape up his contributions, but seems more intent on harassing those of us who point out his poor, uncollaborative behavior. If indeed he's making widespread use of misleading edit summaries, then it's probably time to increment the number of Wikipedias in which he's no longer welcome. No doubt some of the same people who opined in the that RFC/U that he was being persecuted for his views will rush to his defense here, but it really falls to the greater community--how much longer will this conduct be allowed to continue? ] (]) 06:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
*Chris has been doing a great job with the merges so far, and needs to be allowed to continue. If it helps him to have the articles live as he merges them, then I don't see a problem holding them restored for a brief time. He already merged back a few last night before logging off, and given the sheer amount of cleanup and merging work he has put in over the last week, I don't see why we can't extend a little good faith that he is going to have that taken care of quickly. If that really is an insurmountable problem for everyone else, then since he is doing merges by going through the categories, then at least do him the favor of keeping the categories when you redirect the pages. ] (]) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
**I have no problem with Chris merging D&D articles in his own way, but he absolutely needs to master the simple courtesy of ''communicating'' with other users rather than making misguided accusations of bad faith or needlessly dragging them at ANI whenever something doesn't go ''exactly'' the way he wants.] (]) 18:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


== Complaint Against Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Cerium4B ==
Nothing to see here. I noticed a comment at ] explaining that a series of merges to ], performed per a ], had been restored by a disruptive IP around 2011. Some of these articles ended up at AfD recently, and I agreed with the editor's recommendation of a procedural close to redirect/merge. I went to check the discussion and all the articles that were part of the merge proposal. Indeed, most, if not all of them had been illegitimately restored by an IP, and since there were was already users asking for these articles to be redirected right away so as not to clutter AfD, I went ahead and restored the redirect, ie the merge procedure from 2010. I saw that the 2010 consensus was apparently satisfied with , so I didn't do more than restoring the redirects that should have stayed as such. What was added to the articles between 2011 and now didn't amount to much, and ] doesn't prevent only a small part of the article to be moved, so yeah, that's it. I simply returned things to the 2010 status-quo, and the accusation of "false edit summary" is at best laziness, or at worse outright and misguided assumption of bad faith from ChrisGualtieri.</br>This is really a non-issue and a useless cluttering of ANI. ChrisGualtieri can easily access article histories and move whatever content to the target he deems necessary (something he doesn't seem to get), if he considered there were better merge targets or ways to merge, then he could just have informed me, changed the redirect target without mass-reverting me, and just proceeded (as long as he has consensus on his side). ChrisGualtieri seems to have ''major'' communication issues per his recent ], and on top of that this comes only a day after he again ] about another case of redirect, so I would not appreciate if this behavior became a trend. I have also noted that ChrisGualtieri has just created a new article, ], to apparently merge all the articles in question there. I don't necessarily agree with this choice, of which ChrisGualtieri failed to notify me, and I hope this ANI report was not a way to preemptively stifle opposition.] (]) 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
{{atop
:: There is a lot wrong with your post. You have harassed me and caused a great amount of stress and all because you are incapable of understanding when people are even on your side. In the span of two weeks, I've done more to fix the Dungeons and Dragons content than you have in your entire editing history! Deletion is a last resort and of the 100+ pages I've merged, you have the audacity to flagrantly twist my words and actions into some sniveling little behavior dispute? Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia; it is not therapy and you should not be here to fight anyone. Folken de Fanel, you are not worth MY time, and you are not worth this communities time when you refuse to understand even the most basic of reasons why I temporarily restored them: To prevent over 400 broken links that go into a redirect loop. If you had bothered to check and carry out a merger instead of creating said redirect loops, I wouldn't have rolled them back and I wouldn't have brought this here. You equate "causing stress" to a personal attack. You have caused a lot of unnecessary stress with your battleground behavior and wasted hours of time responding to your sheepish excuses and disruptive actions. Now I am going to conduct the rest of the mergers now that I have a few spare hours and maybe do some of the 500 ''other'' D&D pages that need merging or fixing. ] (]) 22:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
| result = First, you haven't notified @] of this discussion, as is required. Second, your "Concerns Regarding Source Reliability" are (ironically) unsourced assertions and borderline frivolous (a journalist being murdered ''for doing their job'' and the publication being sued for defamation by a politician). Third, you are ]. If you continue to edit ] you will be blocked. ] (]/]) 20:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Outside of your own, obvious hostile behavior against me, I can't see anything here that belongs in ANI. I have provided all the necessary explanation in my previous comment, that you keep ignoring it and even go further in your groundless accusations speaks volumes about you. That's not the first time you've written frivolous ANI reports, so I wouldn't like you to think ANI is your go-to whenever you don't want to bother communicating. I'm not (yet) seeking sanctions against you because you're otherwise a valuable user, but I'm asking the closer of this thread to firmly remind you that ANI is not your personal alternative to civil discussion. ] (]) 12:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
}}
* If one merges a number of articles which are only besourced to primary sources into a list (which is therefore similarly only sourced to primary sources), the list is just as subject to deletion as the original articles ("''Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies''"). Not that it ''would'' get deleted round here, as there are too many people prepared to ignore Misplaced Pages policy in AfDs, but I hope Chris is hoping to add some real-world notability to that article. ] (]) 18:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
::The plain descrption of plot and characters in fiction can and should be preferentially taken from the work itself, it is one of the places where primary sources are appropriate. since the sections of an article or the content of a list of this sort do not have to meet any notability requirements, there is no need for secondary sourcing of undisputed factual content, and the attempt to remove such is one of the reasons why some of us are a little apprehensive about indiscriminate merging. This attitude that we should remove ll mention whatsoever of the actual events and individuals in a fiction is thoroughly unencyclopedic. BK, you closed a very closely related discussion at AN/I --your comment above suggests to me that you are too involved in these questions to have done so. ''']''' (]) 23:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
:::Yet, at the same time, ] says we don't burden topics with too much detail taken from primary sources even if it is verifiable. If no secondary source has bothered to do a more detailed discussion or review of the fiction, we should not be going into that great detail ourselves. The articles FdF is merging rest heavily on the primary sources and attempts to show secondary sources have brought up nothing, and as such, a lot of that content has to be trimmed out in the merge to make the target article appropriate for Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 06:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::: I closed the ANI as it was getting off the point (towards RFC/U territory) and there was no admin action required. As for the above, I don't see how merely stating Misplaced Pages policy is at all contentious. As Masem says, if "''the articles ... rest heavily on the primary sources and attempts to show secondary sources have brought up nothing''" then we shouldn't be creating a bigger article with the same problem. Since the individual items are non-notable, the one reason for having such a list (navigation) does not apply. To say "''the content of a list of this sort do not have to meet any notability requirements''" is flat out wrong - there has no be notability for the main ''subject'' of the list, and that means secondary sources. Otherwise we could create lists of, well, pretty much anything non-notable using the same criteria. ] (]) 10:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::::DnD's use of deities (and how it changes between settings and over time) is certainly a subject that has received outside coverage. Now, I don't think the current organization in any way promotes the effective presentation of that coverage, and the merges (by ''race of fictional adherent''? seriously?) don't seem at the moment to be creating any better of a situation. But the topic does pass N, because you could go write ] and that would be a real article on a notable topic. --] <small>]</small> 10:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::At which point, due to its length, ] is a valid ] (if not worthy of being that topic's main article in its own right). I don't remember the precise bit of ] but it's always been my understanding (after reading it long ago) that if a list is on a notable ''topic'', the ''individual items'' in said list do not necessarily need to pass N themselves (and this is why, my not-yet-caffinated brain continues remembering, merging to a list is often a good idea at AfD). That said, we shouldn't necessarily ''merge wholesale'' from fails-N articles to a list, instead using "X is Y, and is recognised in-universe for Z" in a single paragraph at most in the list with the article redirected there. - ] <sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub> 13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


=== Summary ===
*'''Comment'''- I do not see how FdF's edit summaries are deceitful. It's very clear that he is not claiming to actually be merging anything. Rather, he explicitly states that he is returning these pages to their post-merge state and links to the discussion where the merges were proposed. That much is obvious from reading the edit summaries. And if that wasn't clear enough, he's said much the same thing here at this ill-thought-out ANI thread. ] <sub>]</sub> 04:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I am reporting User:Cerium4B for disruptive editing and making personal attacks in the talk page discussions related to the reliability of sources for the ISKCON article. The user has repeatedly accused me without evidence of using AI to draft my responses, criticized my English proficiency, and dismissed concerns about the reliability of certain sources, including Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab, without providing a solid basis for their claims. This behavior violates the principles of Misplaced Pages's civil discourse and reliable sourcing guidelines. I would also like to clarify that I consistently use a formal tone for Misplaced Pages discussions as I aim to maintain professionalism in line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines.


=== Details of the Issue ===
*Realistically, since we're not even prepared to put any constraints on Claritas' freedom to roam the fiction topic area removing content at will, there's no point even discussing Folken de Fanel. Unlike Claritas, FdF doesn't have a history of bad faith.<p>I do seriously question the community's judgment on this. I think it's a horrible mistake to let these users blunder about the fiction topic area like loose cannons, and I feel we could save ourselves a lot of future drama and heartache with a few judicious topic bans. But the community won't stomach it, so move on.—] <small>]/]</small> 15:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:*Primarily because if we topic banned everyone who did anything controversial, nothing would ever get done. --] <small>]</small> 15:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
:*I still can't see anything "controversial" or any "blunder" that I would have done in this case. In 2010, a consensus discussion established that a series of articles were to be merged, and several users, including some who have contributed here, approved the move, as well as the amount of content being merged (perfectly in compliance with ]). In 2011, a disruptive IP reverted the redirects against consensus and without discussion. In 2013, some of these restored articles ended up at AfD, where a member of the D&D project noticed the IP's disruptions and remarked these articles were better restored back to redirects rather than cluttering AfD. Following the said AfD I found all the other articles in question and in perfect accordance with my edit summaries, merely restored them back to their 2010 status, which should never have been changed. If there was anything controversial or any blunder, it lies with the original disruptive IP and the misguided user who overreacted by opening this thread in blatant assumption of bad faith instead of just trying to properly understand the situation, or even to initiate simple communication. End of story.] (]) 16:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


==== 1. Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks ====
==] closed==
User:Cerium4B has made personal attacks against me, including accusing me of using Artificial Intelligence to reply in discussions and criticizing my English proficiency, which is irrelevant to the content under discussion. These attacks serve as a distraction and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would also like to emphasize that I use a formal tone for Misplaced Pages contributions in a professional manner and in line with Misplaced Pages's standards for respectful and clear communication.


==== 2. Dismissal of Concerns Regarding Source Reliability ====
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
During the ongoing discussion about the reliability of Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab, the user has failed to address valid concerns raised about the credibility of these sources. These sources have been historically controversial and should be scrutinized carefully before being used to support content in the article. Instead of engaging constructively with these concerns, the user dismissed them without proper research or evidence.
# {{user|Hitmonchan}} is indefinitely ] from all pages relating to any ] topic or individual, broadly construed.
The concerns about the reliability of these sources have been discussed in detail on the talk page:(https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Concerns_About_the_Reliability_of_Sources:_Samakal,_Daily_Naya_Diganta,_and_Daily_Inqilab).
# {{user|IFreedom1212}} is indefinitely ] from all pages relating to any ] topic or individual, broadly construed.
# {{user|Tarc}} is indefinitely ] from all pages relating to any ] topic or individual, broadly construed.
# {{user|Josh Gorand}} is indefinitely ] from all pages relating to any ] topic or individual, broadly construed.
# {{user|Baseball Bugs}} is indefinitely ] from all pages relating to any ] topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of ], broadly construed.
# {{user|David Gerard}} is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see ]).
# {{user|David Gerard}} is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
# The ] adopted in ] for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the ''Sexology'' case, not this one.
# All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Misplaced Pages, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.


==== 3. Inappropriate Behavior and Disruptive Editing ====
For the Arbitration Committee, ''']]]''' 01:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The user has engaged in disruptive editing by reverting my edits without proper discussion and by making baseless claims without credible secondary sources. This has led to unnecessary edit wars, undermining the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages. Their behavior violates WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS.

=== Request for Administrator Action ===
I request that an administrator intervene and review the user's conduct. The user’s personal attacks, disruptive behavior, and failure to engage constructively with sourcing concerns are hindering the editing process and disrupting collaboration. I would appreciate your assistance in resolving this issue and ensuring that discussions remain focused on content and policy-based principles.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
— '''Jesuspaul502'''] (]) 19:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{tq|"The user has repeatedly accused me without evidence of using AI to draft my response"}} — OK, I'll bite. Have you used AI to generate this post? ] (]) 20:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Unblock request for {{noping|Aman.kumar.goel}} ==
''']'''


This has gone unactioned for > 2 weeks. Any admin want to take a crack at it? ] (]) 02:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
==Deprecate PROD, close unchallenged AfDs as delete without prejudice==


:<s>'''Weak support''' - Amar realized that ] is a mistake. Amar, I hope you shouldn't share your account. As per ], you need to come clean on other projects before appealing. ] (]) 02:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)</s>
I have made a proposal to ]. Since this will likely effect the workload of administrators in one way or another, I'm notifying you of the discussion as well as the relevant deletion process talk pages. If you have an opinion on the matter, please chime in there. --] <small>]</small> 17:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
::This is not intended as an unblock discussion. They rejected carrying their request to the Community. Just looking for an admin to take a look. ] (]) 03:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Withdrawing support. ] (]) 03:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Specifically, a checkuser. Two CUs so far have declined to unblock, so no non-CU admin can lift the block either. -- ] (]) 04:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:49, 26 December 2024

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Open tasks

    Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links
    XFD backlog
    V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
    CfD 0 0 0 16 16
    TfD 0 0 0 8 8
    MfD 0 0 2 2 4
    FfD 0 0 1 6 7
    RfD 0 0 9 70 79
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1


    ZebulonMorn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Appeal of my topic ban

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


    (1) The topic ban is not repealed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comments by uninvolved editors

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

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

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

    Why I use alts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art

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

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

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

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

    Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

      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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Examples: HJ Mitchell

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

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

    Examples: 331dot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Request for closure review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to Shavian alphabet

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

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

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

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

    Call for decisive admins to clear backlog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Self-requested RM relist review

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

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

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

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

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

    I think this is an appropriate relist since additional discussion might lead to consensus on a new title or enough options for a bartender's close. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "Early" closes at AfD

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

    Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't overly matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. TheSandDoctor 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @TheSandDoctor: I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours since last relist. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, TheSandDoctor, there's no requirement to wait another week following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. SerialNumber54129 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Serial Number 54129, Vanamonde93, and Daniel: Thank you all for the insight on this. I've just always operated under the assumption/understanding that relists were for another full 7 day cycle as if the AfD was just (re-)posted. I'll adjust accordingly. Thank you! TheSandDoctor 00:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    To be clear the AfDs I'm discussing have not been relisted; they're being closed before 7 total days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) I was actually thinking of raising different modification: currently WP:AFD/AI actually indicates discussions should be closed after they have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old (which is 168 hours + rollover of UTC day), which definitely does not reflect practice. I would agree that pre-168 hour closure should probably only occur in exceptional circumstances, though I can't say I've really been keeping track of them so I wouldn't know if the current rate is above my expectations. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I haven't done formal math but based on having looked at this over 10 days of closes I'm guessing it hovers just under 10%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have been doing some afd closes and I have noticed this as well, probably done it a few times myself, when the result seemed unlikely to change. I usually start doing them less than two hours before midnight UTC though, which is three in the afternoon for me. El Beeblerino 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't recall you from the days I've sampled, but art of my thought here is that AfD seems more than adequately staffed at the moment. So what's the rush with any of these? Just let them play out for the full time and any of the many admin who are around can handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I just popped in there, all but one from today was already closed. I could be imagining this, but it feels like since I started doing AFD closes again last month, the other regulars have started doing them even earlier. It also seems clear that some of them are watching them days ahead of time, while myself I prefer to come in clean and just read the debate, but that's perhaps just a matter of personal taste. I agree there's no real rush, there's plenty of other backlogs that actually need help. El Beeblerino 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it tends to be only the kinda gross ones that end up on the /Old list. I've set myself a personal policy to not relist anything that hasn't made it to that page, but I'd also be pretty happy if we all agreed to only close AfDs after they ended up there. -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    If the issue is that WP:AFD/AI (To process an AFD debate listed on a day page containing debates old enough to be closed) implies something different than the explicit statement in WP:CLOSEAFD (A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)), then the two should be reconciled in some way.
    I don't think that there is an objectively better answer here, but the current practice appears to be closer to the language in WP:CLOSEAFD. Since, as WP:PAG notes, technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors, I think we may want to consider tentatively revising WP:AFD/AI pending future discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Except old enough links to WP:OLD and only things older than 168 hours appear on that page. So I'm not sure I agree they need reconciling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • As someone who has closed thousands of AFDs, I'll just say that closure times varies a lot over time (I'm talking years) and with different discussion closers. NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early, sometimes a full day or two early. I assume this is because they think a discussion looks like SNOW and they want to get the practice of closing AFDs. I regularly remind them to wait for 7 days to pass.
    And we have some admins, none of whom are currently closing AFD discussions, who consistently close up to 9 or 10 hours early. In the past, I have often left a user talk page note about these early closures and those notes usually result in changes in their behavior. Then, there is another phenomena at 23:00 UTC, there is often early closures of lingering AFD discussions that are due to end between 23:00-24:00 UTC. In general, I don't get concerned about AFD closures that are within an hour or two of the appropriate closure time but I do post notifications to closers who close AFDs half a day or days early. We have respected admins who are irregular closers who close a discussion as SNOW that doesn't seem like SNOW to me! I'll just say that while this phenomena might be getting attention right now, the situation is much better now that it was months or years ago. I also recommend that any chiding of closers is done as a general and gentle reminder to all admins, not singling out individuals as we always are short of closers and some of our worst early closers simply do not close AFDs any longer. That's my 2 cents as someone who spends a lot of time in this area.
    I'll also say that while I believe in the 7 day rule, we really get little discussion participation after the first two or three days, when discussions are first posted or right after a discussion has been relisted. We see little last minute activity in deletion discussions. That's my observation. Liz 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    That's what I've generally seen as well, although as you know I wasn't regularly doing them for quite a while until recently. I figure when it is the last hour for everything, it's probably ok to close slightly early unless you see a very recent post that makes a new point or points out sources not previously discussed. Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.

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

    For those that may not know, the XFD closer does alert you when you are closing a discussion early and you have to affirm you are doing so deliberately. El Beeblerino 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time. I have to register strong disagreement with this statement. It's not my experience that most AFDs are closed hours ahead of time. I think that most closers are very respectful of the 7 day guideline and only close discussions early if it is SNOWING until we get to the 23:00 UTC hour. I think some closers, admins and NACs, have a SNOW bar that is too low (like 4 Keeps or 4 Deletes) but that is a subjective judgment on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. Liz 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion. An AfD should be closed when the outcome is clear. A WP:SNOW close is absolutely fine when the snow has fallen. An early close by a few hours is fine when, aside from outliers making weak arguments, there is overwhelming consensus for specific outcome that cannot realistically change in the course of the normal pattern of an AfD. BD2412 T 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, this seems like a good problem to have.
    Regarding, "NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early", I've closed discussions as clearly keep on the seventh calendar day, but an hour or more before the clock completely runs out, and don't see an issue with something like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wanda Toscanini Horowitz where there is discussion and only keep !votes. I've also had several times where I read through the discussion, wrote up the rationale, and came back a few minutes before the clock ran out only to find the discussion already closed early by another editor. Closing early (at least for me) is to avoid duplicating and wasting effort.
    A technical solution to make collaboration easier when closing would be appreciated. I have no idea how the XFDcloser gadget works, but I'm imagining some kind of way to flag an AfD discussion not as closed but as "being reviewed" or something like that. Rjj (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Rjjiii, I wasn't talking about all NACs or anyone specifically. I think it's just a tendency among NACs to be enthusiastic about closing or relisting discussions and so they can take action too soon sometimes. But NACs help out a lot and usually make accurate closures. IF I have issues with any editor, I bring it to their User talk page and they are almost always very responsive to criticism which, to me, is an essential trait on this platform. Liz 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Liz, gotcha, and I wasn't taking it in a personal way. I realize it can be hard to tell with just text. Rjj (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Quibbling about a few hours seems to be clearly against the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. If an the admin has time to process a batch of AfDs now but not in a couple of hours, it makes sense to do that rather than letting them sit. For many years WP:XFDCLOSER has also implicitly encouraged this but colouring such discussions yellow instead of red. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      The yellow is just for relists, as far as I can tell. An AfD that is about to hit 168 hours is still red. -- asilvering (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oh! I've always misunderstood that then. – Joe (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I'll be the contrarian I guess. I understand WP:NOTBURO, but by the same token, if someone is fervently defending a keep of an article, especially if contentious, giving the full 7 days is not a bureaucratic move, but one of respect. People have taken their own time to create such media (articles, images, etc) and we should be respectful of their time and efforts before removing them, especially if done in good faith. One of the biggest problems we have is getting new people involved. There's no quicker way to get someone out than to delete all their work. All that said, yes, a WP:SNOW keep = ok to close early. The same would apply for a WP:SNOW no consensus. Some additional, generic clarifying guidelines for both Admins and users would probably go a long way. Buffs (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      Went ahead and went bold early: . Feel free to revert if you believe it is in error. Buffs (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      I completely agree with and endorse this outcome. I would assert that any WP:SNOW outcome can be closed once the snow has fallen, and that any discussion for which the outcome cannot reasonably be expected to change is in the same situation. If for example, you have a nomination for deletion that starts out with a handful of delete votes, and is followed by a flood of keep votes with well-reasoned bases in policy and evidence, particularly where the article is improved over the course of the discussion with the addition of sources demonstrating notability, then there is no reason to embarrass the subject any further with a deletion template. BD2412 T 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
      Why should there be a different standard for deletion versus keeping? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    On replacing crap lead image for Sophia Loren

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

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

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

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

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

    {{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}}

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

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

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

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

    Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.

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

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

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro

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

    Add to wikidata.

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

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

    Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.

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

    Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois

    https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania

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

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

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

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

    Blatant vandalism

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

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

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

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

    Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST

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

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

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

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

    Mass rollbacking my bot

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

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

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

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

    Question about Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

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

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

    In my opinion yes, they would: the combination of that "significant role" and the scope of both sets of sanctions being "broadly construed" is sufficient to include them. WaggersTALK 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. Have verified that this is an Armenian nationalistic claim: Never having serious scientific grounds and fulfilling its political goals in 1991, but still littering today school textbooks, this nationalistic paradigmatic concept maintains among a number of other amateurish ideas that 'Urartians' were 'Armenians', without even attempting to explore what 'Urartians' and 'Armenians' could have meant in the 9th-6th centuries BCE, thereby demonstrating a classical example of historical presentism page 3.
    I'll add the relevant templates in Talk:Urartu and Talk:Urartian people. And will remove this comment by non extended confirmed editor. Bogazicili (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione

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

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

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

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

    Small technical question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    References

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

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

    Edit war with User:Mellk vs User:Rnd90

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

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

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

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

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

    Dubai chocolate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PayPal Honey edit warring

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

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

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

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

    Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor

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

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

    Dear Wikipedians,

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

    I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

    Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

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

    Supposedly blocked editor appears unblocked

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

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

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

    My comment seems broken. The wikitext is 
    ] is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of ] are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.
    For me, and in a private tab, the piped link does not render, and I just see 
    User:ArxhentiVirzi is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked.
    ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've fixed it for you. You were adding this page to the category. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The account is globally locked which is why there is no local block showing. Nthep (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, always look at the Contributions page to check and see if an editor is blocked or globally blocked. Liz 19:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    subversion

    Global block evasion. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    We are done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    This user is sabotaging some editions Like This and This and This. Specially this one Which mentioned with significant sources. thanks for the corporation 2A02:4540:24:84B4:1:0:89D7:7138 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Merry Christmas!

    Lovely.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you, MolecularPilot. Liz 20:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

    suggestion

    This complaint has no merit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

    ActivelyDisinterested explained to DerryGer120 about their edit that removed multiple editors' comments. DerryGer120 denies that they removed comments, even though the diff clearly shows that they did. It was likely unintentional, which is what ActivelyDisinterested was trying to point out. Schazjmd (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    You are required to notify any editor that you report to this noticeboard. I have notified ActivelyDisinterested for you this time. Schazjmd (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I left this message on DerryGer120, pointing out that their edit to WT:V had removed comments by other editors. I assumed that this was just a mistake. After DerryGer120's denial I followed up with this message to explain how the edit history works to show them making the edit, and again explaining that I assumed that this wasn't their intention.
    I don't have anything to add, DerryGer120 is still a new user and I take no issue with them raising this here. If anyone has any thoughts on how I could have worded my message any better I'm always open to suggestions, communication online can easily be misconstrued. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI?

    Moved to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI? – voorts (talk/contributions) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Vanished users holding user rights as of 25-12-2024

    Hi. The following vanished users hold the mentioned user rights, some of them are also globally locked. I guess their rights should be removed?

    Username Last edit User rights
    Vanished user 1324354 20241220184536 autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer
     DoneRenamed user 752595fd077b7cc069aced5f592aa938 20241122065248 pending changes reviewer, rollbacker
     DoneRenamed user eb1ee62d1149327ec5c6d6ee42f08205 20241113070034 autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer
     DoneRenamed user e2bceb05e0c43dd19cc50e3291d6fac5 20241005122230 autopatrolled
     DoneRenamed user 0e40c0e52322c484364940c7954c93d8 20241003115931 ipblock-exempt
     DoneRenamed user 6907cec52323a7d54b85dc472c6b6619 20240501040754 ipblock-exempt, pending changes reviewer
    Renamed user tk7QEzr9HZuLSk 20210417225619 autopatrolled
    Renamed user v08an9234vu 20191001201326 rollbacker
    Renamed user efB5zCgPvkrQ7C 20091006044722 autopatrolled, rollbacker

    Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    We typically don't remove advanced privileges from editors that are blocked, globally or locally, unless they are admins. I can't point to an RFC where this decision was arrived at, I just know that this has been the custom in the past. Personally, I don't care if this practice changes but I think this change is worth a discussion. Liz 08:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what proportion of vanished editors ever return, but lots of blocked editors do, and it makes sense to me that we only remove userrights that people need to lose and that we do it when they are blocked or vanished. Take Autopatrolled as an example, plenty of content creators who get this are people who don't always "play nice". Making such people autopatrolled doesn't just make new page patrol more efficient, it also reduces the risk of friction between patrollers and these editors. It can also help if you need to know how an article got through NPP, and I suspect more commonly, think of the scenario where a major contributor to an article you are looking at is now blocked; If the blocking admin has left them with either reviewer or Autopatrolled status you can be pretty sure that their block isn't over copyvio or some other content issue. Conversely if they've lost those rights you might want to be suspicious of their edits. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    This makes a lot of sense. They can always be restored if it is ever appropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 5 of these are vanished under the new process, and there is no way for them to return, I've removed from those. — xaosflux 12:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
      • I've got no concerns about de-grouping the others just to not pollute statistics. I run across these from time to time when doing group inactivity cleanups, and have removed without any complaints then. This is certainly differnt from a normal "blocked" user, especially as vanishing has evolved to be one-way. — xaosflux 12:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
        Removed the remaining rights. I'd also like to put on the record that I find the entire concept of vanishing to be silly - if you want to stop editing then stop editing. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    I would like to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned user Grundle2600

    Thanks DoubleGrazing. Noting else to be done here. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    I am coming there to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned User:Grundle2600.

    It has been 14 years since my "indefinite" ban, and I just wanted to see if that's long enough for me to be able to openly edit the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.

    I have made several hundred edits with this particular account over the last several months, without any problems other than a few very minor messages on my talk page.

    If you ban this account, I will understand.

    If you don't ban this account, then at least I can be open about who I really am.

    The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    This confession will lead to your block. Why don't you file an unblock request on your original account? It is more likely to have success than coming to AN, confessing, and hoping no one will care. Liz 10:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comment.
    I'm willing to get blocked. If that's what their policy is, then so be it.
    Misplaced Pages claims to be the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.
    The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    ...but before doing so, you may want to think of a convincing explanation for the history of socking Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600/Archive. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. I hope they see all those great edits I made with my sock puppet accounts. The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Lots more at https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Grundle2600
    I am proud of those edits.
    The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    I can't be sure whether you really are Grundle2600's sock, or just want everyone to think so, but either way it seems you're effectively asking to be blocked.  Done
    (Obviously others should feel free to unblock, if this turned out not to be warranted.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ranged weapon

    I think Talk:Ranged weapon should be preserved at the AfD's talk page, since it includes necessary context for the comment by Nurg (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Admins have access to look at the page history if needed; there's no rule we have to preserve any portion of a deleted article for generic public access, including its talk page. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Complaint Against Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Cerium4B

    First, you haven't notified @Cerium4B of this discussion, as is required. Second, your "Concerns Regarding Source Reliability" are (ironically) unsourced assertions and borderline frivolous (a journalist being murdered for doing their job and the publication being sued for defamation by a politician). Third, you are edit-warring. If you continue to edit tendentiously you will be blocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Summary

    I am reporting User:Cerium4B for disruptive editing and making personal attacks in the talk page discussions related to the reliability of sources for the ISKCON article. The user has repeatedly accused me without evidence of using AI to draft my responses, criticized my English proficiency, and dismissed concerns about the reliability of certain sources, including Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab, without providing a solid basis for their claims. This behavior violates the principles of Misplaced Pages's civil discourse and reliable sourcing guidelines. I would also like to clarify that I consistently use a formal tone for Misplaced Pages discussions as I aim to maintain professionalism in line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines.

    Details of the Issue

    1. Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks

    User:Cerium4B has made personal attacks against me, including accusing me of using Artificial Intelligence to reply in discussions and criticizing my English proficiency, which is irrelevant to the content under discussion. These attacks serve as a distraction and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would also like to emphasize that I use a formal tone for Misplaced Pages contributions in a professional manner and in line with Misplaced Pages's standards for respectful and clear communication.

    2. Dismissal of Concerns Regarding Source Reliability

    During the ongoing discussion about the reliability of Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab, the user has failed to address valid concerns raised about the credibility of these sources. These sources have been historically controversial and should be scrutinized carefully before being used to support content in the article. Instead of engaging constructively with these concerns, the user dismissed them without proper research or evidence. The concerns about the reliability of these sources have been discussed in detail on the talk page:(https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Concerns_About_the_Reliability_of_Sources:_Samakal,_Daily_Naya_Diganta,_and_Daily_Inqilab).

    3. Inappropriate Behavior and Disruptive Editing

    The user has engaged in disruptive editing by reverting my edits without proper discussion and by making baseless claims without credible secondary sources. This has led to unnecessary edit wars, undermining the collaborative spirit of Misplaced Pages. Their behavior violates WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS.

    Request for Administrator Action

    I request that an administrator intervene and review the user's conduct. The user’s personal attacks, disruptive behavior, and failure to engage constructively with sourcing concerns are hindering the editing process and disrupting collaboration. I would appreciate your assistance in resolving this issue and ensuring that discussions remain focused on content and policy-based principles.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Jesuspaul502JESUS (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    "The user has repeatedly accused me without evidence of using AI to draft my response" — OK, I'll bite. Have you used AI to generate this post? Daniel (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unblock request for Aman.kumar.goel

    This has gone unactioned for > 2 weeks. Any admin want to take a crack at it? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Weak support - Amar realized that meatpuppetry is a mistake. Amar, I hope you shouldn't share your account. As per SO, you need to come clean on other projects before appealing. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is not intended as an unblock discussion. They rejected carrying their request to the Community. Just looking for an admin to take a look. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Withdrawing support. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Specifically, a checkuser. Two CUs so far have declined to unblock, so no non-CU admin can lift the block either. -- asilvering (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Category: