Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitextInline

Revision as of 02:19, 3 November 2014 editRicky81682 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users161,010 edits →Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics: no consensus to overturn the topic ban← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 04:44, 25 December 2024 edit undoFrank Anchor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users24,663 edits →Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request: support
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<noinclude><!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded. -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
	<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}
			|algo = old(7d)
	</noinclude>{{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 = 255
	|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 17:		Line 17:
	|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>
	-->{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure}}</noinclude>
			==Open tasks==
	== General sanctions for matters pertaining to units of measurement in Britain ==
			<noinclude>{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}
			{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}
			{{Clear}}
			{{Admin tasks}}
			__TOC__
			</noinclude><!--Here because there's a bug in mobile, please don't remove-->
			== ZebulonMorn ==
	Pursuant to a discussion at ], I'd like to propose that ] be established for matter pertaining to units of measurement in Britain. This is a subject area that has seen persistent disruption for many years. For those not familiar with the situation, Britain is currently in a state where both metric units and imperial units coexist. Many people express a preference for one system or another, and the matter is quite political. Our style guide has recommendations about what units to use in articles with ] to Britain at ], but these have often been the subject of acrimonious debates. Edit wars about which units to display in articles have caused various problems, including a sock-puppetry campaign by banned user ]. Given all this, and given the recurrent disruption and inordinate time-wasting that is caused by this type of behaviour, I'd like to propose enacting general sanctions, as I said above. These general sanctions would enact ] for edits that switch units between imperial and metric in UK-related articles, and would allow uninvolved administrators to place sanctions on those who behave disruptively in matters pertaining to British units of measurement. I'm open to other proposals, as well. However, I think that it is about time that something was done to curtail this incessant disruption. It is harmful to the encyclopaedia, it wastes time, and it causes editors to wage political wars on articles that scare aware good editors. Please do comment. I recommend that anyone who comments here should read the talk-page archives at ], as they provide a good history of the dispute. ] — ] 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|Closed with no action at the moment. {{u|ZebulonMorn}}'s last edit was nearly six days ago and some of their comments below appear to be conciliatory, although others were evasive—direct replies are wanted, not "Happy to answer anything else if needed". If further issues arise, please explain them at ] and ping me if necessary. ] (]) 02:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Hi, {{user|ZebulonMorn}} has ignored continual warnings on a range of topics (manual of style in military icons, minor edit purpose, citing sources, and more recently has ignored consensus on a NPOV on a BLP article). Request admin intervention. --] (]) 21:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{yo|Engineerchange}} can you provide the community with examples linked with ]'s? Thanks. ] (]) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' This is long overdue. To put this into perspective, current guidance is to use predominantly metric units with the few exemptions defined where the imperial unit remains the primary unit and to provide a conversion; to be clear the guidance is to use both systems. Its a sensible compromise yet we have seen the talk page held hostage by pressure groups seeking to use wikipedia to advance an agenda; they are not here to build an encyclopedia. For example, the pressure group the ] has been advocating its members use wikipedia to advance their agenda since 2008 , equally guilty are the ] . The problem is both camps are completely inflexible and compromise is an anathema to both, this is making consensus building impossible with ordinary editors unwittingly finding themselves in the middle. A perusal of the archive demonstrates just how much effort is diverted and wasted in dealing with utter trivia. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 23:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
			::{{reply|Deepfriedokra}} Some examples:
	**Sorry, but where in your UK Metric Association source do you see them asking their members to use Misplaced Pages to advance their agenda? All I see (on page 4 of the newsletter) is a very sensibly written piece describing what Misplaced Pages is, noting that there are POV policies and style guides which need to be followed, and asking readers to "correct any inaccuracies" in articles related to metrication. It's pretty much the sort of neutrally worded message one might expect to see one of our own WikiProjects addressing to completely new editors. The British Weights and Measures Association post is similar; it simply describes a good-faith clarification they made to an article, and doesn't actually advocate its members to use Misplaced Pages for advocacy purposes. Maybe both groups really are using Misplaced Pages to push their points of view, but if so, there's no evidence in the links you've provided. —] (]) 09:03, 15 October 2014 (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)
	*'''Weak support'''. The situation sounds rather problematic, and the proposed solution sounds good '''if''' applied only to individual editors, as proposed herein. The field is so broad that anything beyond the limited scope herein proposed would be destructive: we mustn't go any farther. Placing sanctions on the whole field would amount to general sanctions on the entirety of the UK, which would be nutso. ] (]) 23:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
			:: - Minor edit tag: {{diff2|1260928801}}, {{diff2|1260925564}}, {{diff2|1260877930}}, {{diff2|1260839845}} (each from the last couple days)
	::{{ping|Nyttend}} I didn't mean "the whole field", I meant what you said. I apologise if I wrote something misleading. Administrators should be able to place sanctions on individual editors, as proposed above, and as you said. ] — ] 00:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
			:: - 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)
	:::I was supporting weakly because you said "I'm open to other proposals, as well". We should not be open to other proposals, because the only other proposals that would address this specific problem would be far more wide-ranging than would be appropriate. ] (]) 12:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
			:: - not citing sources or adding info w/o support: {{diff2|1260938015}}, {{diff2|1260909087}}, {{diff2|1260544947}}, {{diff2|1260147566}}
	*'''Oppose'''. The situation in Britland isn't problematic, this appears to be a solution in search of a new way of spelling Aluminum. We really need to stop Americans using cups and spoons in recipes before tackling this. -] (]) 23:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
			:: Hope this helps, --] (]) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I beg your pardon? This has nothing to do with ]. This is about British people arguing amongst themselves about whether metric or imperial units should be made primary in UK-related articles, not about Americans doing anything. The idea that "the situation isn't problematic" is absurd; I recommend you take a look at ] at this very moment to see why it is problematic. ] — ] 00:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::My point is that this is a non-issue, and you know it. The vast majority of Britlandians have no issues on this subject, and the ] link is a hed rerring. The 'camps' are unimportant fringe nobodies, the issue in the UK has been settled for years. -] (]) 01:16, 9 October 2014 (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)
	::::Er...I don't know if it is settled or not, but I do know that people keep bring it up, edit warring over it. All the more reason to institute sanctions, so that the vast majority of Britons needn't be plagued by petty nonsense in British-related articles. ] — ] 01:19, 9 October 2014 (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)
	*'''Support'''. It's just a time-wasting discussion. Everyone who actually lives in Britain knows that we buy fuel by the litre but every road sign shows miles. ] ] 00:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Don't forget, Eric, milk is sold in pints AND litres. ] (]) 02:37, 9 October 2014 (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)
	::That particular kettle of fish has been boiling for ages. ] — ] 02:41, 9 October 2014 (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)
	:::Oh, I know. It amused me the first time I saw it, but after living there for a while, it was something to get used to. Never ceases to amaze me how big a deal people make out of it. ] (]) 05:52, 10 October 2014 (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)
	* '''Support''' Going in pursuit of ] and the statement by RGloucester. Edit war over minor units cannot be ignored. ] (]) 05:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
			*::@], I don't see an answer to Tamzin's question about your userpage? -- ] (]) 17:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Question''' relating to the implication if this proposal was accepted and implemented. Would this really apply to any editor who made unit changes to any of the 10000s of articles that may be considered to be related in such a way to that UK? If so, how would this sanction be publicised and made known to every new editor who came across what they thought was a unit anomaly in such an article. It wouldn't be practical to alert each and every editor about to make such a change to each and every qualifying, would it? ] (]) 06:23, 9 October 2014 (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)
	**{{ping|ProProbly}} If implemented like the ] 1RR restriction, it would basically involve editors being notified after they made edits that changed measurement formats on British articles. After being notified, they would be blockable if they went on to violate the restriction. However, no-one should be blocked for violating 1RR if they have not been notified (although the ARBPIA page states this is possible, in practice it is not done). ] ]] 09:53, 9 October 2014 (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?
	***{{ping|Number 57}} Thanks, that helps clarify the likely consequences. That relies on someone who knows about this sort of thing spotting it. Would that also mean, do you think, that someone who changed a qualifying UK article to comply with their interpretation of the WP:UNITS guidelines would ''also'' be warned? ] (]) 20:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
			*::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)
	****{{Ping|ProProbly}} I wouldn't call it a warning - it's a notification that the sanctions exist. But yes, everyone who makes those kind of edits should be informed. ] ]] 20:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
			*:::I would concur. ] (]) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
	***] Seems likely this is a sockpuppet of {{U|DeFacto}}. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 10:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	*What about '''height''' - both metric and imperial are used in the UK (imperial probably more prominent IMO) and we have {{tl|height}} which converts from one to the other, but which should be displayed primary? ]] 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Height is already in ], but see ] for an example of how much heat and how little light can be generated by such questions. ] (]) 09:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::And thats a perfect example of disruption, where one editor took it upon themselves to edit counter to the Manual of Style, to work through a category switching unit order. They then bragged about it offsite and invited other members of their pressure group to join in. But of course per ] I can't point this out. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 10:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I didn't know that. Good grief. We so need general sanctions. ] (]) 12:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::What might not have come across in Curry Monster's point was the sheer scale of the abuse - this was well over a thousand articles over the course of several months (during this period, according to their contributions, this editor did little on Misplaced Pages other than converting articles in this category against MOSNUM consensus). '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. We have a workable and mainly working compromise at ] and a general desire for peace. But long conflict has left many twitchy and it would be impossible to agree a comprehensive phrasing of ] that would cover every possible eventuality - previous attempts to tighten the phrasing have foundered in mutual suspicion of what loopholes and interpretations the other side might seek to exploit. It remains fertile ground for extremists, particularly one who refuses to accept consensus and has no compunction about, indeed takes pleasure in, stirring and wasting the time of fellow editors. ] (]) 10:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	**{{ping|NebY}} The "compromise" does not reflect the real-life UK practice though and carries no explanation as to the reason for not so doing. It is not supported with evidence, in fact it flies in the face of the available evidence. In short it is totally biased in favour of the metric system. If we fix that, people might respect it] (]) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{Ping|ProProbly}} I'm glad to see you engaging in civil discourse here, however, this is not the place to go on about changing MOSNUM. That discussion should take place at the MOSNUM talk page. This discussion is only about the proposed general sanctions. ] — ] 20:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''&mdash;The immediate concern is the latest batch of ] socks, and I don't think the issue would have come up here if there wasn't such a backlog at ]. We also have ] for ] (thanks to ] for pointing this out), but using this doesn't seem to be a good fit for blocking socks or solving the wider problem described in the proposal. If this is what it takes to get the disruption to stop, then let's do it. ] (]) 11:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' I don't think Misplaced Pages needs punitive sanctions on discussing UK units. However, there should be some way of settling disputes over units that get out of hand and a more effective way of dealing with sockpuppets. It is crazy to fight over whether a statue was 9 feet or 2.7 metres tall. The best way to sort this out is to find out the actual height of the statue and go with that. I also think there's something wrong with a hard and fast diktat that all British heights and weights must be Imperial first when UK Rugby League, Rugby Union and Premier League put metric units first for their players. I think we all know that most milk in the UK is sold by the pint but some milk is also sold by the litre. However, MOSNUM could be read as if milk was only sold by the pint. While MOSNUM could do with some tweaking, there's no way that the general preference for miles could or should be overturned at this time. ] (]) 12:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Mr Glass, whilst I do respect your opinion, this is not the place to be discussing changes to MOSNUM. That's a different pint-bottle of fish, meant to be dealt with at MOSNUM. The purpose of this proposal is to provide mechanisms for dealing with disruption in this topic area, not to quash discussion on potential changes to MOSNUM. Third-party administrators would be able to impose sanctions, as appropriate, on editors who "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" (copied from ]). ] — ] 12:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::OK, but much of the discussion here has been about what MOSNUM says. If the sanctions are going to apply to such things as edit warring over units of measure, fair enough, but if the sanctions are going to be applied to offences against MOSNUM, then MOSNUM had better be beyond reproach. ] (]) 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{ping|Michael Glass}} No, no. Not "offences against MOSNUM". MOSNUM is not and will never be infallible. Like I said, the point is not to quash discussion about changing MOSNUM, but to curtail disruptive behaviour in those discussions. Only uninvolved administrators will be able to impose sanctions, and only for the reasons that I quoted above. You needn't worry about not being able to discuss changing the current guidelines. ] — ] 20:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. ''Background and current situation:'' Currently the ] (DS) authorised by the Arbitration Committee in the article titles and capitalisation case apply to ]. Given ] by an arbitrator on the case's proposed decision talk page the DS likely also apply to article talk pages. If that is the case then the only place they don't apply (depending of course on how broadly you construe) is the changing the characters on articles. From my reading of this thread and of recent discussion regarding it the disruption is being driven by a small number of users and a banned user's socks (which the sanctions will do nothing to stop. ''My suggestion:'' (administrative opinion to stay ]) Instead of authorising a brand new set of sanctions for this area can I suggest instead that we just go with the current discretionary sanctions and if editors side step them and only edit war over the characters in articles then they can be brought here individually for topic bans. As far as I can no one has alerted the people involved to ArbCom DS (now mostly done) or made a report to AE so the DS haven't had a chance to work. If I'm reading something incorrectly or you don't agree please feel free to reply so we can discuss. Cheers, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 13:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Relating those sanctions to this matter seems like a bit of a stretch (one arbitrator's vague words seem like a spurious link), and does not do anything about article-space edits. I see no reason why a new set of sanctions cannot be established for this matter, specifically meant for this purpose, as opposed to weaselling around with old Arb Com sanctions. As far as "a small number of users", there are recurrent editors that cause disruption, but it is certainly not limited to them. Whilst I do agree that what you said could be done, bringing editors here for topic bans, and so on, this mechanism is slow and bureaucratic, often does not work until the disruption has not gone on for ages, and really does not give the appropriate tools to administrators in this area. This is not an area where edit warring or disruption is ever appropriate. There are very few good reasons to ever edit war over units of measurement, perhaps even fewer than in other content areas. Given the history here, I believe that implementing some kind of sanction specifically for this purpose cannot hurt the situation, it can only help it. ] — ] 13:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::The diff provided is a ''former'' arbitrator replying to a ''current'' arbitrator's comment that someone would "wikilawyer" DS to articles. I agree that having overlapping DS and GS in the same content area -- arguing MOSNUM and UK units in the same discussion -- would lead to unnecessary ambiguity. <s>Given the community consensus that's forming, an explicit AC:RFAR request to extend DS to UK units seems reasonable.</s> I lack the wikitime at this moment to fill out all the pixelwork. <small>]</small> 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I would be fine with such an amendment, but I'm not familiar enough with the hidden gears and cogs of Misplaced Pages to attempt to do anything of that sort. ] — ] 16:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I don't quite see that overlap would be a problem and if we have sufficient consensus here, should we bother an overloaded Arbcom? After all, we're used enough to telling editors that they're in breach of multiple policies. Can't the community simply impose general sanctions identical to standard discretionary standards with the addition of 1RR on all conflict between editors regarding units of measurement in UK-related articles, wherever across en.wp such conflict takes place? That should suffice for warnings and actions alike. ] (]) 18:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::That's my thinking, NebY. ArbCom seems to make everything more complicated than it otherwise needs to be. Perhaps it is because I'm British, and in Britain courts (yes, I know ArbCom is not a court) do not have ] of legislative interpretation. I honestly believe this is a matter better suited for a new set of general sanctions. However, if those administrators who are frequently involved in general sanctions matters, such as Callanecc, believe that an amendment is better suited, I'd be happy to take that approach in the interest of compromise. ] — ] 20:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' the principle of general sanctions in this area. What we have at ] is basically a decent compromise. Not perfect, but probably the best we're going to get given the levels of distrust on talk.
			:My issues with ZM have been his lack of edit summaries and the unwillingness to engage in discussion with multiple editors who warned him on his talk page, which recently appeared as until he scrubbed the content without responding. Just today, he made this "minor edit" under his own self-stated rationale that "Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy" that he was editing, under, supposedly "until the past few days" but it never should have come this far.
	:I would note that when the current rule has been taken to forums for UK-related articles outside MOSNUM it has generally been pretty well-supported. It's quite unusual for this to get brought up at ] by non-regulars: I had a look and I found only one discussion on this topic on MOSNUM in the last year at that was not either started by a UK-Units regular (including DeFacto socks) or immediately prompted by the actions of a UK-Units regular. And POV pushers on both sides have come unstuck when they've appealed to what they thought was a silent majority consensus for their preferred system - only to find that in fact, editors were happy with the status quo.
			:@] has made a lot of messes for other editors to clean up, which he is unwilling even to talk about, let alone go back and fix, even after being asked multiple times to fix his mistakes. A Full Block is warranted. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 03:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I'm sorry I was unclear on the use of "minor edit', I really didn't think it was too far, but I know better know. As far as that edit is concerned, was any of the information improperly sourced or unimportant? It hasn't been edited other than de-capitalization. I thought it was a good contribution that was similar other information under different offices. I'm really not trying to create "a lot of messes", I'm genuinely trying to contribute. As far as the engaging, that's my bad. I was still learning to figure out how to navigate wiki, but I've gotten better now. I'm not "unwilling" to talk though, I was trying to respond on talk pages for a couple days before I figured out this was the correct location, again my bad. I think a full block seems extreme, but that's not for me to decide. ] (]) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::And, as I posted on your talk page before you ignored my comment and deleted it, please review our policies such as ]. In this edit for example, capitalizing words like "marketing", "full-time", "landscaping", "lifeguard", etc. are unnecessary. Cleaning up your messes like and takes time and effort. When another editor cites a rule that you broke, please read the rule and learn it, instead of joking about "ignore all rules" and making the same violation a dozen more times. <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Capitalization errors are clearly non-malicious edits and ], while tongue-in-cheek, is still official wiki policy. I've made over 1,000 edits, most of which remain unedited. If this is really the standard for a "full block", there's no point in anyone new genuinely attempting to edit wiki if they're blocked for capitalization mistakes.
			::::Again, I apologize for not understanding what the discussion pages were and the lack of communication. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. ] (]) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::{{u|ZebulonMorn}}, can you respond to {{np|Tamzin}}'s questions above? ] (]) 21:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Hello! My response to ] was kind of an amalgamation response to a few of the questions from people. I believe it was answered there, but if there is anything more specific I'm happy to answer. ] (]) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::"Ignore all rules", in full, says; {{tq|If a ] prevents you from improving or maintaining ], '''ignore it'''.}} It does not mean that you can just do whatever you like. If other editors do not agree that your edit improved Misplaced Pages, or was necessary for maintenance, then it is not protected by "Ignore all rules." It does not excuse careless editing or flouting of policies and guidelines. ] 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			It's been a week. Could an admin be so kind as to weigh in here? Regardless of your conclusion ZM doesn't deserve to have this ] indefinitely. ] (]) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I would in particular broadly endorse the points that ] has made. But I would note that a major part of the problem has been outside MOSNUM, with people mass-converting whole topics from one system to the other, particularly when going against MOSNUM advice, and in favour of their own POV. These editors have generally not been sanctioned in the past, and they should have been. We can get too hung up on DeFacto - he's not the only one by any means. There are plenty on the metric side as well - the main difference is that they aren't blocked or banned. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks. I did forget to say that the problem and the fertile ground for conflict extends well beyond MOSNUM, and I didn't want to imply just one person or just one side needed to exercise or suffer more restraint. ] (]) 19:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' no-one says it's logical, but it's real. ] (]) 20:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)		:I'll renew my concern... ] (]) 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 {{diff2|1263412965}}). See {{diff2|1263414344}} - both sources appear reliable, but have no reference to the subject, completely ignoring ]. --] (]) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - long overdue. ] (] - ]) 20:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' based on evidence presented here. <small>]</small> 10:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' per all the above, this is sorely needed. ]] 10:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	===Proposed wording/remedies===
	As a broad consensus seems to be developing in favour of my initiative, I'd like to propose a wording for these sanctions.
	{{quotation|In articles with ] to the ], any editor who systematically changes values from ] units to ] units or vice-versa without justification, or who edit-wars over such a change, may be sanctioned by an ] if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the ], any ], or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include ] of up to one year in length, ] from editing any page or set of pages, ] on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, ] on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, an editor must be given a notification with a link to the decision that implemented these sanctions, and should be counselled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. After being notified of these sanctions, the editor will be subject to ''']''' when changing values between different systems of measurements in articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the ].}}
	Does this seem appropriate? ] — ] 16:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Can we add that any reference to suggestions that we base unit order on the source used ie source based units is disruptive? Its just as bad from a disruption POV as the edit warring and unit changes. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 17:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::The point of general sanctions is not to stifle discussion, but to discourage disruptive editing and behaviour. Such an addition would be completely inappropriate. If an uninvolved administrator believes that someone is editing disruptively, then they can be sanctioned. ] — ] 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::You mention the UK: what about the ROI, as well as ambiguous situations such as Man, the Channel Islands, and the various remaining colonies such as Anguilla, BIOT, or Tristan da Cunha? I'm not pressing for such sanctions or attempting to opposing them: I simply wonder how you'd accounted for them, whether "we should include them", "we should not include them", or "the precise boundaries ought to be left to the enforcing administrator". ] (]) 19:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::There is no ambiguity in Ireland. It is completely metric, at this point. As far as I'm aware, there has never been a dispute over units at articles relating to the places you mention, and hence I do not think it is necessary to specifically include them in the scope. They are such minor cases that I doubt it will ever be a concern. ] — ] 19:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::In other words, the scope should mirror the MOSNUM guidelines, which specify "the United Kingdom". ] — ] 19:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Given that the Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory, it is quite obvious that that article has "strong ties" to the UK. ] — ] 19:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Oh, I agree entirely. I only brought it up because there seemed to be some question and there was a suggestion that it hadn't come up - after all, the FI have the same status as Anguilla, the BIOT, St. Helena/Ascension/Tristan da Cunha et al. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::What I meant was that I don't think there is a need to specify that these sanctions apply to the "British Indian Ocean Territory", or whatever. That seems like overkill. ] — ] 20:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	:It's late and I'm still buzzing from an ] (] on its feet), but I can still see how to drive several coaches and horses through and around that phrasing, and I'm sure more alert and less buzzing minds will thoroughly enjoy thinking of more. Maybe patch in "or who edit-wars over such a change, ''or otherwise engages in disruptive behaviour regarding units of measurement in such articles,'' may be sanctioned..." Or just look at how DS like ] are phrased and talk of editors editing in the area of units of measurement in UK-related articles. ] (]) 22:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	Fewer word proposal:
	{{quotation|In articles with ] to the ], any editor who systematically changes values from ] units to ] units or vice-versa without clear justification, who edit-wars over such a change, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an ] if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the ], any ], or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include ] of up to one year in length, ] from editing any page or set of pages, ] on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, ] on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the ].}}
	] <small>]</small> 23:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC) (edited <small>]</small> 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC))
	::I'm of the opinion that it is important that procedure be clear, and I think that your version leaves out a good deal of the procedure. I based my proposal off the British Isles sanctions and the Syrian Civil War sanctions. I believe it is important that we make note that sanctions require notifications and must be logged. I'm also not sure why the 1RR was left out. ] — ] 23:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I agree with the logging, I missed that on the copy paste and have updated. The proposal says ''after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions,'' I believe that is sufficient. Additionally, as a too long veteran of the dispute resolution boards, the more language present the more violating editors will seize as an argument for why they were done wrong: ''But I wasn't adequately counseled!'' I think it best to keep it short and sweet. <small>]</small> 23:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I can support the version you've just edited, though it needs a bit of copyediting. ] — ] 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm concerned that this version will be gamed to push source-based units over the top of MOSNUM rules because of the reference to "clear sourcing".
			:@] Hey, you might want to check the conversation again and do your own research first. ] (]) 17:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::Source-based units - that is, a system whereby you use the same units as primary as the specific source used to justify the information (regardless of any other consideration) - has long been used by POV pushers as an excuse to impose their personal preference in this area (because they choose the sources that use the units they prefer). MOSNUM has never preferred source-based units - in fact source-based units have been repeatedly rejected (for the same reasons as would apply to source-based spellings) at ] when they have been advocated by those same POV pushers - but it has in the past contained wordings that those editors ] in favour of source-based units. The justification claimed for the was source-based units.
			::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)
	::We should be very careful to avoid wordings that might be similarly exploited. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 08:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
			:Removed. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	I support the wording as proposed. If MOSNUM recommends one thing and a source gives another unit as primary, this could be an issue that needs to be looked at. Automatically labelling discussion about this as disruptive behaviour sounds quite problematic. After all, between the Metric fanatics, the Imperial fanatics and the MOSNUM AS IT IS! fanatics, we need to tread a very fine line. ] (]) 13:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
			::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)
	*<b>Comment</b> I would support the wording if the words I have struck through are removed. I know I speak from bitter experience but we've editors like Michael Glass have been pushing the idea of source-based units for years ''ad nauseum''. This is one of those disruptive ideas that won't go away and its an excuse to edit counter to MOS. As noted above, a source is selected simply to impose personal preference and the wording proposed left room for further disruptive behaviour. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 13:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Appeal of my topic ban ==
	(ec) In light of this comment, and having considered the point about outing raised and concluded that so long as the evidence is on-wiki there is no problem. I'm not going to pussy-foot about this any more. The editor who went through well over a thousand of articles in a particular topic - sportspeople - converting them from one unit to another ''directly against MOSNUM guidance'', claiming that that guidance was overridden by his preference for source-based units (used as a proxy for metric units because of his choice of sources) is . And it's not the only UK-related topic he has , directly against the advice of MOSNUM with no particular justification, claiming source-based units.
			{{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:
	Now that was 2011-12, so it's certainly stale now - but it does nicely illustrate why I and others have particular reservations about Michael's motivations here and why I and others see Michael's constant calls for source-based units on MOSNUM talk (most recently this morning) as problematic. Frankly, he's one of the worst offenders we have here. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
			:: '''Stuartyeates is indefinitely topic banned from the subject area of biographies of living persons, broadly construed.''' (see ]).
			Since the topic ban I've done some editing of en.wiki (>2,000 edits, some patrols and some barnstars), but I've been mainly active on wikidata (>60,000 edits, no barnstars).
	:Adding to this post-edit-conflict. I would endorse Curry Monster's point here. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
			I accidentally broke the topic ban a couple of times as exemplified by my recent edits to ]: I noticed a mistake on wikidata that was sourced to en.wiki; I fixed wikidata and then en.wiki before realising I wasn't allowed to make that edit and self-reverted (still not fixed on en.wiki at the time of writing). The first time this happened I reported it to the closing admin who indicated that if I caught myself and reverted it wasn't a problem (see ]).
	:::You fellows are getting something wrong here, as did PBS below. The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM. It is to stop disruptive systematic editing. Someone systematically "enforcing" MOSNUM could be just as disruptive as someone doing otherwise. Changes of units of measurement in British articles should be done through talk page discussion, and these sanctions are meant to facilitate that. They are supposed to stop disruptive editing, stop edit-warring, and so forth. The fact that you fellows are attacking the motives of Michael Glass here is entirely inappropriate. This is not a place for that. This is only meant for the discussion of the potential sanctions. Please take your off-topic comments about MOSNUM and Michael Glass elsewhere. ] — ] 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Anyway, I've removed "sourcing", and left "clear justification", as I believe that makes it clear enough without delving into over specification. ] — ] 15:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
			I'll readily admit that I went harder than I should have on 25 Sept 2021. I a non-BLP for the controversy was the right option. Mouthing off on twitter was the wrong option. I feel that I've done my time for what was clearly a one-off. If the topic ban is removed I'll not repeat that.
	::::The wording including the reference to sources it appears to me leaves us open to the argument that does not count as systematic mass-conversion of articles because it's based on sources (because it applies source-based units). Michael appears to endorse this idea. The wording of sanctions should clearly not undermine the MOS, and there is strong potential for this to do so. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::It does not "undermine" the MOS, nor does it "support" the MOS. It has nothing to do with the MOS. It has to do with disruptive editing. Regardless, it no longer says anything about "sourcing". ] — ] 15:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::The fact that this dispute has poured over onto this page is proof of why we need these sanctions, regardless. ] — ] 16:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
			Full disclosure: I was involved in ] and ]. I have previous appealled this topic ban at ]. The discussion at ] may also be relevant.
	*Okay, let's try a new proposal meant to address concerns below:
	{{quotation|In articles with ] to the ], any editor who systematically changes values from ] units to ] units or vice-versa without clear justification, who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to British units, or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an ]. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any ], or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include ] of up to one year in length, ] from editing any page or set of pages, ] on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, ] on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the ].}}
	I've tried to revise this to make it more clear. ] — ] 21:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Does this address the appropriate concerns? ] — ] 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
	:I'm wondering if the "five pillars" bit is worth having. Is there precedent for such language? I'm afraid this whole thing might wind up being a civility slugfest.--] (]) 20:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
			It is my intention to notify ] of this appeal, since all this is New Zealand-related and I have a long history with those folks. I'll also be notifying the closing admin. ] (]) 09:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I have a number of problems with the proposed text:
	:# It introduces an "offence" ("systematically chang values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa") that does not have a sufficient basis in policy. It is disruptive if it is followed by edit-warring, which ''is'' clearly covered by policy.
	:#If the text about systematic changes were to remain, it should not be listed first, since the main problems are uncollaborative editing on the talk pages and edit-warring. A quick look at ], even just the relatively minor example of the current (lengthy) discussion on Misplaced Pages's primary use of imperial units for milk in bottles (as opposed to milk in general or milk in other containers!), should indicate where the problems lie.
	:# I think blocks of one year without reference to the (administrator) community (e.g. via a noticeboard) are excessive. I think a maximum ban of three months (which can be repeated if the behaviour continues) should be sufficient. Normal blocks still apply, of course, so I don't see a special need for longer blocks or bans using this mechanism.
	:# I also don't see a special need to refer to the five pillars.
	:So how about the following suggestion:
	{{quotation|For articles with ] to the ], any editor who disrupts talk page discussions pertaining to British units, edit-wars over the order of metric and imperial units, or who otherwise engages in ], may be sanctioned by an ].
	Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of the British units general sanctions, the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to ], in particular those related to ]-building and ].}}
	:--] (]) 22:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Firstly, the five pillars are always referenced in general sanctions. Traditionally, this is done by piping "the purpose of Misplaced Pages" to the five pillars page. However, I personally find the piping a bit bizarre, and so removed it in favour of an explicit mention. The policies that are listed at the "five pillars" page are essential to Misplaced Pages, and are in fact policies. They are meant to be adhered to, here as anywhere. All general sanctions include a mention of these. "Blocks of up to one year" are par for the course in general sanctions. I'm merely using the standard measures that general sanctions follow, and I see no reason to make these sanctions different from other sanctions, as I said above. Systematically changing of units without discussing such changes and without clear justification is an example of ]. It has noting to do with an "offence". This is the essential problem with British units, and as such, modelled after the British Isles sanctions, should be primary. Talk page disruption is a problem, but it is inherently secondary in terms of how problematic it is to mass edits in the mainspace. Therefore, I strongly oppose placing talk page matters first. Disruption in the mainspace is always more disruptive than disruptive on the talk page, given that such mainspace disruption can compromise the encyclopaedia and its readers. Please follow the standard "general sanctions" format". They are called "general" for a reason, and there is no need to make many exceptions for this particular example of them. They are meant to be simple, and they are meant to be general. ] — ] 22:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
			=== Comments by uninvolved editors ===
	:::I would prefer the piped version if that is what is done traditionally. Could you point me to the format for general sanctions that you are referring to. You refer to the British Isles sanctions and link to ], but you are apparently not referring to the text I find there:
			'''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)
	:::{{quote|text="Any editor who systematically adds or removes the term "British Isles" from multiple articles without clear sourcing and justification, or who edit-wars over such addition or removal, may be added to the list of topic-banned editors. For the purpose of adding users to the list and enforcing restrictions under this provision, an administrator should be uninvolved. An administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at ]."}}
	:::--] (]) 00:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{ping|Boson}} See the following, from the general sanctions page:{{quotation|In areas of conflict the Arbitration Committee occasionally authorizes administrators to impose sanctions on editors working on pages if after a warning they repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Administrators may impose a broad range of sanctions including blocks of up to one year, article or topic bans and revert restrictions. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions for more information, areas subject to discretionary sanctions can be found here. The community may authorize sanctions which echo those imposed by the Arbitration Committee, with the exception of appeal and logging procedures.}}
	::::This is the basis for all general sanctions. I originally got the idea for these general sanctions from working on clarifying the Syrian Civil War general sanctions in a recent AN discussion. ] — ] 01:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::If I understand that correctly, the formulation is used as a general explanantion or rationale for sanctions at ], rather than in any particular sanctions text, except in the Syrian issue, which you worked on. By the way, your ping did not reach me, although I have all notifications switched on. Is this a known bug related to your signature or something? --] (]) 09:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
			'''Comment''' {{yo|Stuartyeates}} You've glossed over having deliberately violated ] as part of a disagreement with others. (Per {{ping|Jayron32|Cullen328}}'s opposes in last appeal.)] (]) 13:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::I don't accept your argument that "mainspace disruption can compromise the encyclopaedia and its readers" in this particular case – when we are talking about whether to write
	:::* {{convert|900|ft|m |disp=flip}} or
	:::* {{convert|900|ft|m}}.
	:::It just makes it seem more dramatic than it is. --] (]) 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::It is disruption, nonetheless. Our as an encyclopaedia integrity is at stake, and this particular behaviour is always disruptive and almost never productive. Consensus is critical in this area. That particular text is part of all the sanctions, as it is the basis for general sanctions. When anything says that "general sanctions" may be imposed, it means that these are the "general sanctions" that can be imposed. ] — ] 13:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
			* I would want to hear from the other involved editors before endorsing a complete lifting of the restriction, but I will suggest limiting the restriction to "race/ethnicity topics involving living people"; that should ensure that Wikidata-related edits do not inadvertently violate a ban. ] (]) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::FWIW I would strongly oppose Boson's wording because it entirely skips out the nub of the problem. If we could be sure that the mass-conversion of articles would cease, talk page discussion would be easier. RGloucester is right that that such mass-conversion is almost always disruptive. Note ], which points out an Arbcom ruling describing just this kind of behaviour: this precisely describes what some editors have attempted in this area. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
			*'''Support lifting the ban''' or limiting it to the restriction suggested above, per my comments at the ]. The ban seemed overbroad to me in the first place: yes, the conduct was egregious, but the remedy was not tailored. As I wrote two years ago, {{tq|I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that.}} ] (]) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC) <small>(Non-admin comment. I was visiting this page to check on another discussion and happened to see this thread.)</small>
			*'''Deeply concerned''' about the sheer number of alt accounts. It took some digging but I found at an afd related to Donald Trump, which makes this a BLP issue. Another alt for a blp. Perhaps not a huge deal in and of itself but technically a violation nonetheless. And by another sock, concerning a list of people, some of whom are alive. by another sock earlier this year. With so many other accounts, who knows what other violations may exist? I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction. Actually I don't support this unless and until Stuart restricts himself to one account for at least six months. It's not feasible to monitor fifty+ alts for violations. ] ] 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
			:* '''I concede that these are breaches of my topic ban''', I'll take that on the chin. I'm sorry I made those edits, I shouldn't have. In my defense (a) They're 100% accidental (b) None of these appears to be related to the issues that led to the topic ban or contentious in any way (c) There are four of them, over the same time I count seven barnstar or barnstar-like awards on my talk archives, so they don't reflect the body of my work over that time. ] (]) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*:Those are four that I found, my point stands that it is almost impossible to know how many more there may be considering the absurd number of alts you have. Barnstars don't change any of that. ] ] 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			:*::I also find it hard to believe that you accidentally commented on Donald Trump. He's famously totally alive. ] ] 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
			*I was prepared to advocate on your behalf... but I'm also concerned based on the number of accounts and what's gone on with them. I'm also looking through your talk page archives (] and ]) and noticing that the barnstars and related awards I'm seeing were actually mostly given by me. Archive 25 has 6 awards given by me as as the result of your participation in backlog drives, one for your participation / contributions for the year (end of year NPP award, given by Dr vulpes), and an AfC backlog drive award (from Robertsky). #26 has an NPP backlog drive award as well (also given by me). I do appreciate your contributions to NPP, but there is a bit of a difference in people going out of their way to give barnstars for great work and receiving them as the result of participation in backlog drives.
			:Anyways though, back to the key issue for me, your use of multiple accounts. JSS said "{{tq|I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction.}}", is this something you're willing to commit to @]? I personally don't understand your usage of, and the large amount of alts that you have. ] (]) 13:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''Oppose''' These alt accounts are a nonstarter for me (some blocked) as are the acknowledged breaches of the topic ban. If they were inadvertent or debatable, I could possibly see fit to give them some slack, but what I'm seeing here doesn't give me a good feeling that lessons have been learned. Show us you can abide for at least 6 months and commit to a single account and I would reconsider. ] (]) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	===Support/Opposition===		=== 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.
	'''Strongly Oppose''' This is instruction creep of the worst sort. It is based on turing the words of a guideline into enforceable policy. Any such enforcement such as this should be based on polices not guidelines "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts." (])
			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.
	The devil is in the detail. Why just Britain?
			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.
	Scope: What does United Kingdom mean does it include does it include the ] the Channel Islands etc? Is the Channel tunnel French or British. Does this apply to the height of someone who holds both British and Irish identity. Does it apply to someone a Republican born in Northern Ireland who does not recognise the British State and travels southern Irish Passport? What about the speed of a tanker ship does it only apply to British resisted ships or British owned ships as well? Does an article such as the ], What about the ] does it come under this? What about the ] (fought before the UK came into existence) and the ] (after the UK came into existence)? What about the ] who was Anglo-Irish, what about ] born in the United Kingdom died in an Irish Free State? What about ] executed as a British traitor? What about Henry VIII (born before the UK state existed)? What about articles on Australia prior to Dominion status? What about ] which was a member of the League of Nations? What about the Boer War? What about biographies of British Army soldiers born in the Dominions? The article ] uses British spelling so is it closely linked to the UK? There are two different articles on railways vans, Clearly ] is not British but what about ]? The point about British Isles is it is narrow in scope and easy to understand. This is broad in scope and open to lots of misunderstandings and also creep.
			One of my alts was created to test for a bug which is now fixed in the upcoming IP Account thingie.
	"These general sanctions would enact ] for edits that switch units between imperial and metric in UK-related articles" So what happens to the rest of the edit that involves more than "switch units between imperial and metric" is all the text in the edit involved under 1RR or just the bits in {{tl|convert}} template? Weight in tonnes is about the same as weigh in long tons. In the case of RAF bomber raids were the weight is given as 10 tons and has been copied into a Wikiepida article as 10 tons, if someone changes that to 10 tonnes is that subject to this as clearly 10 tons is ambiguous (could be read as 10 short tons)?
			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.
	Should the pull-weight of English Longbows be given in lbs, kilos or newtons, are newtons part of this? Is switching between kilos and newtons a breach of this 1RR? If not, then is switching between lbs and newtons a sanctioning act, if so then what is the point of the sanction?
			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 ].
	If there is a mix in the article where some place imperial first and the other place metric first is homogenising them all one way a breach of this sanction?
			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?
	If a horse is measured in hands, does that have to be shown in any other imperial system? Would including hands and having them deleted come under this rule?
			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)
	Height of humans should it be measured in centimetres or metres does conventing from one to the other breach these sanctions, if not then what is the point of the sanctions as that can be just as divisive as between feet and inches and metres?
			:{{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)
	The MOS is a guideline not a policy. Before any such proposals as those suggested above (which are based on a guideline), implemented there needs to be a widely advertised RfC, with dozens of people involved (not the less than 1 score who have discussed it here). So an RfC should widely advertised include advertising it on the talk pages of any and all WikiProjects which edit "British" articles. It needs to be put forwards with clear initial wording so that people who are not familiar with British weights and measures are clear on what is being proposed.
			::@], I'm confused about this discussion of "alts" – do you have a list of these somewhere? If they aren't disclosed clearly on wiki, and they're being used to evade a topic ban or to participate in project space, they aren't alts – they're socks. – ] 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::More importantly, does Stuartyeates have a list of them somewhere? 😜 ] (]) 23:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::I was working off the list of admitted alts . It's... a lot. And no, they are not all clearly tagged as alts. I'm actually rather surprised this did not earn them a block. Perhaps {{yo|HJ Mitchell}} can offer some insight into that? ] ] 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I think that's hardly adequate per ]. ] (]) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Well,I blocked several of them a while ago, I think following a thread on checkuder-l. The creation of so many accounts, especially with borderline disruptive usernames, naturally drew suspicion. I'm not sure what Stuart was trying to do. I don't know if he intended such a good impression of a troll or LTA but that's what he achieved. ] &#124; ] 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm unaware of any accusations that I've used alts as sockpuppets, except for the decades-old allegations above which were clearly boomerang. If there are any allegations that I've done this, please be clear about them. There is a list of all alts I'm aware of at ]. ] (]) 06:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	-- ] (]) 14:42, 11 October 2014 (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)
	::I think you've misconstructed the purpose of these sanctions. In no way does this intend to make "MOSNUM an enforceable policy". Many articles don't even comply with MOSNUM. Even on one of those articles, if someone goes around switching units (perhaps to "comply" with MOSNUM), gets reverted, and then keeps switching units, that would be an instance where these sanctions would apply. There do not apply to normal editors making changes, and discussing and attaining consensus for unit changes on the talk pages of articles, nor do they apply to those who discuss changing the guidelines at MOSNUM. They only apply to those who switch units constantly with no good reason, and edit disruptively as such. Read the "British Isles" sanctions. This is similar to that. It isn't like there would be a ban on switching units, and it does mention "with clear justification". Merely it would force discussion on the talk page, as opposed to having systematic changes of units across articles, like the proposals specify. ] — ] 14:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Any such disruption would be equally true for any article so why single out a specific set of articles? -- ] (]) 19:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)		:::Well said. The TBAN applies to the ''person behind the accounts'' regardless of which account they use. ] (]) 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: And also every single edit Stuartyeates has made since January 2024 is a sockpuppetry violation since several of the alts were blocked then (there are also blocks from earlier but they were username softblocks so can be ignored here), right? ] ] 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::The point of general sanctions is to allow administrators to deal with disruptive editing swiftly in specific areas of conflict. Edit-warring and disputes over units in UK-related articles have caused innumerable problems and inordinate time-wasting. Systematic changing of units in many UK-related articles, as has been done many times by various people, is disruptive. I don't think there has ever been a conflict over American units, Australian units, or whatever. That's because those countries all essentially have one set of units, more or less. In Britain, this is not the case, and that's why we see constant conflict over units. Units in Britain are politically charged in a way that they are not in America, Ireland, or Australia, and that's why they've caused endless conflict here. That's why general sanctions are appropriate. They grant administrators the tools they need to deal with conflict that otherwise isn't being dealt with. The status quo is to let disputes fester for months, leading to all sorts of nonsense like sock-puppetry, disruptive editing, &c. It simply does not work. ] — ] 20:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
	{{od}}I don't follow what you mean for two reasons. First is all pages with measurements need then in imperial and metric, if not then they are either difficult for an American to follow or for an Australian (so at worst all one is talking about is which comes first). Second what does "UK-related articles" mean --See my comments above--ie what is the strict definition that you wish to use for that term? -- ] (]) 14:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Ah! You haven't followed the conflict, then. All articles have both metric and imperial measures, or at least they are supposed to. The area of conflict is whether metric or imperial measures should appear first ("primary"). It may sound minor, but it causes {{convert|10|t|LT|frac=5}} worth of headaches. That's exactly why it is needed, the same as with the British Isles sanctions, which are most similar to this proposal. It causes inordinate disruption. UK-related articles refers to articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the same way "]" works for ENGVAR and date formats. I don't think a strict definition is necessary. If it wasn't necessary for date formats or ENGVAR, I don't see why it would be here. That's up for article talk pages to decide, and in the case of sanctions, for the uninvolved administrator to decide. ] — ] 15:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::<small>In British English both day month and month day are used.</small> Your are talking to one of of those who was involved in early over ENGVAR :-) ENGVAR is fine vague definition for a guideline because it is an exception to the rule of it an article started out in one version of English do not change to another, and people in good faith can debate on the talk page if a particular page falls in or outside a particular ENGVAR. If you want to use it for sanctions (where by definition good faith is lacking) then you ought to come up with a precise definition of what you mean. I have given lots of examples above of the problem of scope. So what is your clear definition for enforcement of sanctions? --] (]) 16:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I take your points above about advertising this more widely and agree that would go better with some more preparatory work on the wording. But I don't think that wording should be extremely tight and fear the first proposal placed too much emphasis on disruption within articles by unit-switching. This proposal's here and meeting with such general support because we've seen so much wikilawyering, so much playing merry hell with the details and so much delight in finding new tactics and battlegrounds. Looking at ], I'm attracted to the brevity of "Men's Rights / Men's Rights Movements" and "All pages about social groups" and would favour simply "Units of measurement in UK-related articles". If "UK-related articles" seems too broad, we can probably find a tighter phrasing such as "articles primarily concerning UK subjects". I don't think it's necessary to be explicit that this includes talk pages and project pages and the like, any more than it is for MR/MRM and social-groups sanctions. ] (]) 16:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I agree with NebY, here. However, I see nothing wrong with "articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom". This is a standard definition used here on Misplaced Pages, and is used for MOSNUM purposes. I don't see how this definition is inappropriate. In articles without strong ties to the UK or US, metric is favoured by MOSNUM, though it says that changes should not be made without discussion. In those cases, any dispute would fall outside these sanctions. This only applies to UK articles, like, for example, ]. ] — ] 17:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::Thanks. I'm hesitant about the "strong ties" phrasing only because it might encompass articles which also had strong or stronger ties to other places - I'm not sure quite which, maybe soccer or World War Two or some such. Still, maybe we can make progress by looking at ] and considering how we'd fill in the columns along similar lines, for example:
	::::::::::* Applicable area: "Units of measurement in articles primarily concerning UK subjects", "Units of measurement in articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom"
	::::::::::* Type: "1RR and discretionary topic bans or blocks"
	::::::::::* Sanctions: "Explicitly including but not restricted to switching units, forum-shopping, tendentious editing and disputation, being boring" - could probably be trimmed further, though it is tempting to paste in Boson's list. ] (]) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	Reluctantly '''oppose the suggested wording'''. It is not balanced because it does not explicitly and adequately address the main problems, which are at discussion venues such as ] and talk pages – and in fact distracts attention from these problems, which are more to do with:
	* the ] of a very small number of vociferous editors
	* repeated discussions of previous behaviour that verge on ] and focus on individual, named editors rather than addressing their arguments
	* an apparent unwillingness to ] on the part of at least one editor
	* consensus building being ] by ] and ]
	* discussions of alleged ] that verge on (purported) ]
	* collaborative editors being tempted to leave and effectively grant veto power to more vociferous and persistent editors.
	Whatever the intentions or motivations of any of those involved, changing the order in which metric and imperial units are shown (or the addition of metric units to comply with ], as in the recent dispute) is ''objectively'' nothing like as disruptive as the nature of the discussions at ].
	What we really need is something that enables egregious ''sockpuppets'' to be blocked very quickly, and encourages constructive and ''brief'' debate of issues aimed at improving the articles and the guidelines.--] (]) 15:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Er, the wording says "who otherwise disruptively edits" and "who does not adhere to the five pillars". This is fairly standard for general sanctions. It doesn't specify every particular behaviour, merely "disruption". If an uninvolved administrator believes that something is extremely disruptive, he can sanction that editor. ] — ] 17:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::The problem is the enumeration
	:::# any editor who systematically changes values from metric units to imperial units or vice-versa without clear justification,
	:::# who edit-wars over such a change,
	:::# or who otherwise disruptively edits.
	:::The main problems with UK units are more to do with the disruption of the consensus-building process on the talk pages, but the "otherwise" is intuitively understood to mean "disruption of a similar nature", which would probably suggest edits to ''articles'' similar to edit-warring. This would target editors "guilty" of one type of potentially disruptive editing and give ammunition to other editors who are actually causing the problem. Similar problems come up in law; I'm not sure if it's covered by the principle ''inclusio unius est exclusio alteriu''. So ''if'' we are to have an enumeration, we should probably include both types of disruption, specifically referring ''first'' to talk page disruption, ''and'' something like the ] ("the enumeration of certain types of disruption shall not exclude any other types of disruption"). --] (]) 19:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
			== Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art ==
	::::I don't accept that the described issues are the key problems on talk. If those issues exist at all, they arise primarily through exasperation when ], which certainly does happen. In some cases they've been making the same case for years on end, it's been rejected at every turn, and the reasons provided for rejecting the case have been ignored the next time. Editors should not be expected to counter the same argument the 50th time an editor has raised it in the same way as they countered it the first time; to expect them to is to expect an inhuman degree of patience.
			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)
	::::I would also note that the difficult nature of talk page argument is to a major degree driven by the backdrop of experience of disruption caused by mass-conversion of articles - particularly when this arises through Wikilawyering the guideline. It is much harder to get consensus when there is no trust, and that backdrop means that there is very little trust. It is this that, ultimately, is a major cause of the problems on talk. If we could be sure that such mass-conversion would no longer take place, I believe that would make discussion at MOSNUM talk easier. Not necessarily always easy - you have people who demand 100% metric and people who demand 100% imperial and it's going to be hard to reconcile them regardless - but easier. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 19:35, 12 October 2014 (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>
	:::::We should remember what started the current flair-up: the discussion ] started by an egregious sockmaster after ] changed the non-compliant "a nine-foot bronze statue" to " a {{convert|9|ft|m|adj=on|disp=flip}} bronze statue" to make it comply with ], which requires that metric units also be specified. --] (]) 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
			::{{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)
	::::::I've been pointing this out. If we could get to a stage where people did not use DeFacto socks as an excuse to escalate this, but rather did what we really should be doing - closing the discussions started by DeFacto socks and letting sleeping dogs lie - then this would also reduce the problems at talk. There are ways in which we reduce the arguments here, but they require everyone's cooperation and we don't have it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
			:::Another one just appeared at ]. ] (]) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::The problem at ] is not that some people want all metric and others want all imperial. Excluding the contribution of the DeFacto sockpuppets, the disputed issues (as I understand them) are relatively minor:
			: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)
	:::::* whether to refer editors to "The Times" style guide
	:::::* what to do about sports where metric measurements are often used by the relevant associations (and ''The Times'' style guide says that metric measurements are preferred for sports) but the text of ] (excluding the reference to ''The Times'' style guide) prescribes imperial measurements
	:::::* what to do about milk, beer, and cider (where the guideline (arguably?) deviates from legislation and usage).
	::::: The problem is that the situation is repeatedly misrepresented and disrupted in the way described above.--] (]) 20:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::If that's how you've understood the issues here, then I believe you've misunderstood them in general. We do have editors who argue 100% metrication and we have editors who argue 100% imperial. Not all of them are asking for it all at once, but it's clear that that's the desired final result. A major argument in the present dispute, for example, is that change would make the guideline more metric and that that would be desirable in and of itself - which misses the point entirely (as Misplaced Pages is not allowed to express such a POV).
	::::::But as I say, one of the major issues is the history of some editors Wikilawyering the rules to push their preferred system. If we could be sure that this will stop, then I believe that this would assist in resolving things by generating trust. I know I would be far more willing to trust that people are not going to systematically abuse the MOS if I was confident they would be sanctioned for doing so. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Re your last point, that's why I used "including but not restricted to" phrasing above. ] (]) 19:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::That goes a long way to alleviating my concerns and is a good basis for further discussion, but the wording probably still needs a bit of tweaking. --] (]) 20:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Certainly. Do you want to suggest tweaks, or talk about what's missing or off so that we can find a brief phrase for it? ] (]) 06:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Well, I don't think we can leave in the bit about "being boring", though it is tempting. Perhaps an explicit reference to talk pages and some links to relevant guidelines that include ]] etc. would be sufficient. --] (]) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm quite prepared to sacrifice "being boring" - it was more of a placeholder. I had hoped "disputation" covered talk pages and edit comments - maybe that can be made clearer by extending the examples of behaviours as you suggest, as in this draft: "Explicitly including but not restricted to systematically switching units of measurement without consensus and ], ], ] and ] editing and disputation concerning units of measurement". Mmm - that's verging on too lengthy. Thoughts, anyone? ] (]) 18:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
	@] and @] What does "primarily concerning UK subjects" mean? What precise is the definition of UK/United Kingdom that you are using? -- ] (]) 14:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)		:Is there any kind of guideline about including AI artwork in articles on here or is it just based on people's feelings in the moment at this point? --] (]) 14:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			::There'sn't. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I'm sorry, but I don't see how a "precise definition" is necessary. This strike me as splitting hairs. Like I said, I would use the exact same "definition" used by MOSNUM, that is, articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom. ] — ] 15:45, 13 October 2014 (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)
	::I'm puzzled too at the implication that we would need a detailed definition of the United Kingdom. ] itself has {{tq|"In non-scientific articles relating to the United States... In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom... UK engineering-related articles..."}}. Looking for similar scope issues, I find ] has {{tq|"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation"}}. Sanctions are no more precise than those policies, which wouldn't surprise anyone who's seen bounds tested: {{tq|"related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted"}}, {{tq|"Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted"}}, {{tq|"Explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal."}} and more. There isn't a great deal to choose between {{u|RGloucester}}'s phrasing and mine; mine is intentionally slightly more restrictive.
			::::This is not true. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I saw your list of possible grey areas above. They are always with us. Editors have been applying their interpretations of ] in many surprising ways and arguing fiercely about many possible interpretations. Conflict over use of imperial or metric units has extended to articles very similar to the ones you mention, maybe even to some of those very articles - I haven't checked. Those conflicts can be bitter and fierce, long and draining. We're proposing to damp down those conflicts through sanctions and, I'm glad to say, we actually have strong general consensus among the combatants for this effort - if we can find a suitably balanced phrasing. ] (]) 17:52, 13 October 2014 (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)
	:::Would anyone care to propose a new wording that incorporates the concerns of other editors here? ] — ] 18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::@] and @] When did the UK you want to use in this these sanctions come into existence? -- ] (]) 22:17, 14 October 2014 (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:
	::::::???? This is not necessary. Any article with strong ties to the United Kingdom. That means that it includes articles like ], as that event is historically tied to what is now the UK. It really doesn't matter when the "UK came into existence". As it says at the MOS for ENGVAR, the ] is written in British English because it has strong ties to Britain, even though Britain did not exist in the modern sense at the time of the fire. We don't write that article in ], but ]. ] — ] 23:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
			<pre>
	::::::::::I've made another proposal above, if you care to take a look and see if it addresses your concerns. ] — ] 04:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
			_o_
	====Arbitrary break====
			| <--- Spider-Man
	{{od}}
			/ \
	@] do you agree with ]'s assesment of what UK means ? -- ] (]) 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
			</pre>
	:My "assesment of what UK means" is irrelevant. If these sanctions are applied, no-one is going to call me up and ask me what UK means, or consult this discussion for my assessment. ] (]) 08:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
			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)
	::@] so you are supporting a proposal in which you think there is no agreed definition as to scope. Why? -- ] (]) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
			:Note: I have informed the ] of this discussion. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::{{ping|PBS}}That's not what I said and it doesn't follow from what I said. I've supported the suggestion of sanctions. I haven't supported RGloucester's wording, which I have tried to discuss with {{pronoun|RGloucester|obj}}, and I have floated an alternative approach to a formal wording. I now despair. I'm staying away from ] and have only come back here when you've pinged me. ] (]) 12:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
	@] I am not sure which proposal you are referring (what is the time stamp on it). If you do not mean the ] then you should not link to it. Instead you need to define what you mean by the UK. Do the proposed sanctions include articles about the 26 counties of Ireland that were part of the United Kingdom? -- 20:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I'm not going to play what I presume is a game. It is fairly obvious what it means, and that's why it is used already for the sake of ENGVAR and date formats. "Strong ties" to a particular country, as opposed to others. Ireland is outside the scope of these sanctions, as they are totally metric, and as has been explained above. Sadly, I feel that you fail to realise that the Great Fire of London has strong ties to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" despite the fact that that state did not exist at the time of the fire. That's because the territory where that fire took place is part of the modern United Kingdom, and hence the history of that territory has "strong ties to the United Kingdom" as opposed to other states. The history of southern Ireland does not have strong ties to the modern UK as opposed to other states, as the state that it has the most strong ties to is ]. Is that that difficult to understand? My proposal is in the "propose remedies" section. ] — ] 20:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::@] It is incorrect and therefore misleading to say that Ireland is totally metric. It is far from it. It is very similar to the UK, with TV and newspapers using non-metric, and people mostly using non-metric in everyday life. The only difference from the UK is that the Irish government has changed speed limits to kph, but people still have mph speedometers and speak in terms of mph. Ireland should have a section for articles with strong ties to Ireland being required to use the same units as the Irish do. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			== Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request ==
	'''Oppose in Strongest Possible Terms''' largely for the reasons enunciated by ]. Further, what does "strong ties" to the UK mean? What system of units would be used for ]? ] (]) 23:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
	::These sanctions are not about determining what units are used where. That's already determined by the MoS (]). Please actually read the MoS and its section on "strong ties" before commenting. ] — ] 12:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
			The following is copied from ] on behalf of {{u|Sander.v.Ginkel}}:
			{{tqb|I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: ] and ] (note that the two other accounts –- ] and ] -- at ] was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.
			Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (], ], ]) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at ]). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Misplaced Pages (where I misused the same accounts). At this Misplaced Pages I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see ]). I have created over 900 pages (see ]), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance ], ], ], ] or the event ] that is barely mentioned at the English ]. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Misplaced Pages by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see ] and ].
	::::@]: but you have to "play that game" because you are proposing to put into place sanctions that can have editors banned for a year. For a start you give the example of the "Great Fire of London" but it can be argued that is because London is within the country of England and the country of England is where the English Nation resides (strong national ties to the English). That does not mean that there is a strong national tie between the the state of the ], it depends on whether one sees the state of the (UK) as encompassing four nations or just one -- a very topical political argument. -- ] (]) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::The point about ] is it is an exception to a rule (of no changing spellings etc from the initial spellings), but there has to be a consensus to apply it in any given context. It is from a guideline and "guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts" (]) and if there is an article written in a different dialect of English then consensus has to be obtained before a change takes place. This means that even if in your opinion an article has close ties to Britain, if it is written in another dialect then British English does not apply (EG ]). If the initial author had written that in British English then it would still be in British English. But according to what I understand you are suggesting that even if an article is not written in British English if the subject has strong ties to the United Kingdom then such an article would be subject to the proposed sanctions. -- ] (]) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::You stated above that in you opinion it applies to ] but it does not apply to the 26 counties. Then what about the ]? I raised this problem of scope in the ] of 2013. -- ] (]) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I also strongly object to the idea that there should be a sanctions warning/information page, you will also find those arguments in ] of 2013. -- ] (]) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (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 ].}}
	*'''Comment''' If editors want to bring in sanctions on changing measurement types why not make it universal instead of trying to defined it to a poorly defined subset of articles? -- ] (]) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
			] (]) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::This is only a problem with British units, that's why. There is no reason to apply sanctions in areas outside the dispute. You are talking about discretionary sanctions, but these are general sanctions. There must be a page to coordinate and log sanctions issued so that administrators can be held accountable. I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for this odd nonsense about the "nation of England". Can we please have even the smallest semblance of common sense on this page? "Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Misplaced Pages jargon. There is nothing unclear about it. As I've said, and as it says at the page I piped it to, strong ties means "strong ties to one country as opposed to others", meaning that in areas where multiple countries have strong ties, it does not apply. I do not take kindly to one editor stonewalling what is overall a broad consensus of many editors above. I'm happy to work to create a good wording, but this is just taking it to another level. ] — ] 13:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::"{{green|"Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Misplaced Pages jargon.}}" Where? -- ] (]) 21:15, 17 October 2014 (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)
	::::{{ping|PBS}} ] and ]. ] — ] 01:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per above.] (]) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::I guess I don't understand why you care about this in the first place. When I suggested using an internationalized form for the United States ] ''"In English, American means "AMERICAN". Do you think I cater to the whims of foreigners? Please, go to "the Hispanosphere" Misplaced Pages, where they can indulge you in stupidity."'' Since the majority of this master Anglophone race are in the USA and they use imperial units why are we catering to the whims of the dirty foreigners? I thought you were against that? ] (]) 03:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
			*:Endorse one account proviso. ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Please take your irrelevant and entirely off-topic vitriol elsewhere. ] — ] 03:48, 18 October 2014 (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)
	:::::::Hmmmm ... okay. ] (]) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (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)
			== Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block. ==
	===Moving forward===
	*It is about time we moved this forward. There is no reason to allow this proposal, like so many others, to flounder. There is broad community consensus that something must be done about the present circumstances, and I intend to get these sanctions up and running. Let me propose another wording, using the basic general sanctions format. This wording should address the concerns of ] and ] above.
	{{quotation|In articles that have ] solely to the ], as opposed to other English-speaking countries, any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without ], who edit-wars over such a change, who disrupts talk page discussions or normal Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to units in UK-related articles, who engages in ], or who otherwise disruptively edits may be sanctioned by an ]. Sanctions can be imposed if, after being notified of the existence of these sanctions, the editor repeatedly repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any ], or normal editorial processes. Sanctions imposed may include ] of up to one year in length, ] from editing any page or set of pages, ] on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, ] on reverts or other specified behaviours, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective. Sanctions may be appealed at the ].}}
	::This is my attempt at clarity. Let's not let bureaucracy destroy something that has the potential to abate disruption. ] — ] 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' Re:"{{green|any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear justification}}". What would constitute "clear justification"? Assertion of common use? Assertion that official UK bodies do it that way? Cited reference style? I changed them weeks ago and nobody noticed until now? A "sock" changed it first? Never mind what common usage might be, modern civil engineering uses those units?] (]) 06:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
			See ].
	@] I object to the name of this section it is not "moving forward" (which is a biased title) it is "arbitrary break (2)" (or whatever number is appropriate).
			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.
	I asked "{{green|"Strong ties to the United Kingdom" is an established phrase in Misplaced Pages jargon.}}" Where? You replied ] and ] but neither of those do mention the phrase instead they state "a particular English-speaking nation" and as such there is no need to define if the English speaking nation is England or the UK. So I am not sure why you write {{green|I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for this odd nonsense about the "nation of England". Can we please have even the smallest semblance of common sense on this page?}}". So the MOS does not give you a definition for what the UK means, further you are putting in a claim for national ownership on articles which is expressly forbidden in the sentence "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article".
			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)
	In you latest version you write ou to talk about "strong ties solely to the United Kingdom" but you are unable to define what the United Kingdom and claim it includes articles like ], or in you latest draft are you excluding historical article before 1922 as the United Kingdom before 1922 included Ireland?
			: 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)
	You say "This is only a problem with British units, that's why. There is no reason to apply sanctions in areas outside the dispute." but by removing the scope of the UK it would simplify the wording, making it much easier to understand as there would be no ] on the borders.
			::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)
	"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus", but from what you wrote earlier "The area of conflict is whether metric or imperial measures should appear first" then it is not a "changes values from one system of measurement to another" but a rearrangement of the ordering of one system of measurement with another.
			::@], 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)
	Higher up the page you said "The point of these sanctions is NOT to enforce the compliance of articles with MOSNUM." then what does "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" mean because consensus usually includes the wider community view as expressed in policies and guidelines, explained in ].
			: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)
	In this section you state "There is broad community consensus that something must be done" I see no such consensus particularly as this suggestion has no been put to an Rfc, that has been widely advertised.
			::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)
	Also the whole issue according to to this page was started by an editor adding metric to a page that did not have a metric measurement. Presumably some people objected to the metre before feet measurement, but I do not see why the MOS has to micro manage something like that (first come first serve unless there is a consensus to change it just like ).
			: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)
	Something else that editors to this section do not seem to have not considered it that the the verity of English that an article is written in defines the ENGVAR not the subject of the topic, this means that the advise given in ] is not very useful because ever article is written in a National variety of English and it is the language an article is written in not primarily the subject of the article the should determine any quirks in measurements, although there will be cases where the units used will be tailored via common usage in reliable sources. -- ] (]) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
			:::My user talk is hardly not public. ] (]) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	::], if you want to change MOSNUM, be my guest. I don't like the current guidance either, and have submitted numerous proposals over the past year as such, whenever this problem comes up. England/Scotland/UK, what's the difference? There isn't any England. It was subsumed into the UK, and anyway, they use the same units. I don't understand what you are talking about with national ownership. I never said any such thing. Merely that I am mimicking the existing guideline at MOSNUM, which specifies that articles with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use that nation's system of units. Rearranging the ordering is changing the values. "Clear consensus" means what it always means, which is that the appropriate usage should be decided through talk page discussion. MOSNUM itself says in a footnote that in the event of a dispute over units, talk page discussions should decide what units to display where, and that the existing guidance at MOSNUM is not a hard and fast rule. This suggestion does not need to be put to an RfC. Misplaced Pages is not bureaucracy, and all existing general sanctions were not created through RfCs. If you'd like me to remove the "scope of UK", fine. I'll do it, if you'll support it. However, I don't see why that's appropriate. The point of general sanctions is to remedy a dispute. If there is no dispute, there is no need for sanctions. Given that there is no dispute outside UK-related articles, I don't see why the scope should be expanded as such.
			::::Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. ]] 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	::A "biased title"? There is nothing biased about it. I'm merely trying to move forward. What the heck could be biased about that? My break wasn't "arbitrary". I put it there for a reason. PBS, I'm starting to think that your only intent is in stonewalling this proposal. You have shown no willingness to compromise, and have continually nit-picked over things that are utterly absurd and trivial. You are raising issues that have nothing to do with this proposal. You are acting with a clear bad faith attitude towards me, and it is seeping into myself as well. Please explain, PBS, what exactly it is that you want me to do to make this proposal work? If there isn't anything I can do, then there is no point in continuing this discourse. As it is now, it seems as if you are trying to make me write a legalistic document that specifies every potential technicality in existence. No other general sanctions outfit does this, and I don't see why it is necessary here. The administrator in question has discretion in interpreting the basic framework, as he does with all general sanctions. He is held to account by the logging of sanctions, and by the ability of those sanctioned to appeal. There is no need whatsoever to write a constitution here. ] — ] 21:29, 21 October 2014 (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.
	:::Another question for ]. It is quite clear you don't like my general sanctions proposal. However, there is a widely acknowledged problem with units of measurement in UK-related articles. This problem needs solving, and has caused inordinate disruption. I am trying to remedy that situation, and so far, no one else has visibly tried or succeeded in doing so. Given that you have a great distaste for my proposal, what is ''your'' proposal to deal with these problems? If you haven't got one, that says something. There is no reason to allow this disruption to continue. I don't care how it is curtailed, but it needs to be settled. ] — ] 23:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
			: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}}.
	::::I am sorry but I am rather busy at the moment, but I will answer some of your points in detail in about 18 hours or so. In the mean time I would like you to consider the article ] which is written in British English, but has yet to have imperial measurements on it. I would also like you to consider articles on the Allied bombing in world War II and how to decide which metric conversions to use when the article says 100 tons of bombs were dropped, but the secondary sources do not make if clear if they mean short or long tons. -- ] (]) 22:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			:* 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).
	::::::I don't care about that. None of that matters with regard to these sanctions. That's to be determined by MOSNUM. I don't understand why you are bringing up inconsequential stuff here. This is not about MOSNUM, or what conversions to use. No article is forced to comply with MOSNUM, anyway. It is just a guideline. The only purpose of these sanctions is to sanction disruptive editors. What units we use where is inconsequential to this proposal. ] — ] 22:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			:* 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?)
	{{od}} If an article is written in British English then surly the measurements used should be those used in British English? The subject matter is irrelevant, other than in the long term articles about a subject with a strong ] to a English-speaking nation will gravitate to use the English of that nation particular nation. The point being it is not the subject matter that dictates usage but the style of English used. -- ] (]) 17:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
			:* 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 ].
	::That's not how the present guidelines are arranged, PBS. At present, if one is writing an article that is not related to the United Kingdom in British English, the guidelines specify that one should use solely metric. Regardless, PBS, this has nothing to do with the sanctions. If you'd like to change the guidelines at MOSNUM, as I've said, please do. I don't like the existing guidance. These sanctions, however, have nothing to do with what units are used where. If you'd like to change the guidelines, go to ] and contribute a proposal there. In the mean-time, however, I'd like you to respond to my question. That is, what exactly can I do to make this proposal work, and if I can't, what is your proposal to solve this disruption? ] — ] 17:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::@RGloucester "if one is writing an article that is not related to the United Kingdom in British English, the guidelines specify that one should use solely metric" where? -- ] (]) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)		: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)
	*'''Strongly oppose''' - existing procedures cover such issues perfectly well; experienced users are well aware of the need to discuss edits that are contested by others. When people don't discuss them and cause disruption, they can be appropriately warned/blocked etc.
			::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)
	:A great many new (and new-ish) users are likely to have strong feelings about metric/imperial measurement in the UK. Blasting them with discretionary sanctions without giving them a fair opportunity (and appropriate reminders/warnings) is not conducive to the goal of attracting editors.
			:::''That'' block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- ] (]) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:This would be ], increasing rules and complexity which discourages participation from people outside regular editors.
			::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)
	:Certain users are always going to edit-war over what many consider the most trivial of entries; adding further rules about the specific areas does nothing to resolve that problem - in fact it is likely to cause further wasted time arguing over the nuance of the specific rules.
			::: 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)
	:Let people discuss the issue as much as they wish, in an appropriate and cordial manner - indeed ''encourage'' such discussion. Use appropriate existing measures to stop edit-wars and deal with those who cause disruption across articles in an appropriate manner.
			:::: 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)
	:In general, admins can be too keen to stomp on anything that causes them work; they would do well to remember that the purpose of Misplaced Pages is to present knowledge, and while it is important to prevent disruption it is not to prevent reasonable discussion.
			::::: {{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)
	:There are over 9000 similarly 'trivial' topics of frequent and heated discussion, and discretionary sanctions should be reserved for use only when absolutely necessary to prevent disruption.
			:::::: 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)
	:This sounds like a measure proposed to stop the actions of one (or perhaps a few) disruptive and persistent individuals - I can appreciate that it may make it easier to deal with those specific cases, but I fear it is at the cost of imposing unnecessarily draconian laws upon a great many other users. ] (]) 21:48, 23 October 2014 (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)
	*'''Point of order''' - is there any admin action still being requested? If not, this discussion should be closed. Discussing changes to policy/guidelines can take place in the appropriate places; AN isn't one of them. ] (]) 22:24, 23 October 2014 (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)
	::You do realise, firstly, that general sanctions are always established at AN. This has nothing to do with policy or guidelines, so please stop. No one will get "smacked with discretionary sanctions" unless they behave disruptively. Give that you're a likely sock, I don't think it is really worth engaging with you further. ] — ] 22:46, 23 October 2014 (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)
	:::I wish that personal attacks such as that were actually dealt with appropriately. Sir, if you think I'm a sock, you know how to deal with such a matter - SPI or GTFO.
			::::::::::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)
	:::I know that general sanctions can be established at AN. Is there still a request for such, or have we moved on now to a discussion of policy/guidelines? If it's the latter, it no longer belongs on AN - I hope you'll agree. I believe, at this point, this discussion is unlikely to result in any admin action; if there is an admin action requested, perhaps it could be clearly stated and !voted upon. ] (]) 22:59, 23 October 2014 (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)
	::::::No "admin action", whatever that is, was ever requested. We don't need an administrator to set-up these sanctions. I couldn't give a damn about the policy or guidelines. This is not a request. Presuming that the discussion is closed in favour of establishing these sanctions, they will be established. Said "action" was endorsed by a great many users above. The only dispute has been over the wording itself as proposed. ] — ] 02:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
			::::::::::::@] agreed, I hate it. ] ] 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Any process needs a well advertised RfC to show that there is a consensus for the process. This is not a well watched page and the score of editors who have expressed an opinion to date can easily be described as "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" (]) -- ] (]) 09:54, 24 October 2014 (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)
	:::::::::{{Ping|PBS}}, in response to your first question, ] says that articles that do not have strong ties to the United Kingdom or the United States should be written entirely in metric. No "RFC" is required. Why is it that no other general sanctions were established by RfC? Why is it that they were all established at this noticeboard? Why is it that this proposal is somehow an exception to the norm? Why is it that something that does not affect everyday editors is considered so significant? ] — ] 15:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
			{{cot|Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin}}
	::::::::::If there is a real consensus for such sanctions then that will be reflected in the outcome of a widely advertised RfC. Quite frankly it concerns me that "a limited group of editors, at one place and time" can bring in sanctions which may then get a person banned for a year. I would suggest that all such sanction proposals should be subject to a widely advertised RfC. This one in particular is badly defined and potentially affects 100,000s of articles and hence could involved almost every editor unless they restrict their editing to a very narrow field of topics
			<pre>
	::::::::::I can not find anything that says "articles that do not have strong ties to the United Kingdom or the United States should be written entirely in metric" please quote the sentence in ]. I think you are misunderstanding the first two sentences of the guideline. Because if it were true then for example the box at the start of the article on ] need to have the imperial measurements removed, as does the article on the ]. I also think that it opens up an interesting consideration, in that if the language is in a national verity of English why would one switch units depending on locaiton? Do Americans suddenly understand the metric system when reading about the weight of a Frenchman but fail to understand a weight expressed that way for an American? -- ] (]) 15:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
			== Tripleye ==
	:::::::::::], if you want to force RfCs for all general sanctions, please go gain consensus for creating such a policy. It does not exist at present. No one will "banned for a year" unless they cause such severe disruption that they would've been blocked for a year anyway without the sanctions. The uninvolved administrators that can issue sanctions are held to account by logging and by appeals to ]. It doesn't affect any editor that does not systematically change units or disrupt unit-related discussions. That's a very small niche of editors, and even then, they must first be notified that the sanctions exist before having to worry about sanctions. If you read ], you will see that metric is specified as primary in instances of articles not related to the UK or US. I think you're misinterpreting my words, anyway, because conversions are always given in such cases, as it says at ]. The dispute has never been over whether to use metric or imperial without conversions. Conversions are a separate part of the guidelines, ]. The dispute is over what unit is primary. In articles not related to the UK or US, metric is primary. The guidelines are clear. ] — ] 17:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
			Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules.
	{{od}}
	@] If one person proposes general sanctions on an issue on this page, and no-objects then would you say that a consensus exists for those sanctions? -- ] (]) 17:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	::Of course not. That's not what has happened here. ] — ] 20:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Then how many editors do you think make a quorum? -- ] (]) 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	:::::{{Ping|PBS}} I don't think we have "quorums" here. We have discussions. If, in the course of a discussion on a public noticeboard, the majority of editors who participate support the enacting of some proposal with adequate justification in policy and guidelines, that proposal should be enacted. It isn't really that complicated, and is how practically everything on Misplaced Pages works. If you'd like to establish a rule on "quorums", please go do so. There is no such rule, and I've never seen a case where some abstract notion of a "quorum" was required for anything on Misplaced Pages. I also do not understand how this affects the proposal I've made. Instead of dealing in the abstract, please explain, as I've asked, how I can make this proposal work for you, or, if you have another proposal, please tell us. I'm being quite generous, here. ] — ] 16:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::#But you have just agreed that one is not enough so you do believe in the concept of a quorum, and the number of editors who have commented here is very small given the number of pages that are involved.
			Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City.
	::::::#You have not been able to define the scope as you seem incapable of defining what the UK means, this is particularly problematic for articles on history. For example does it include ]? Does it involve the American and Australian colonies before independence/dominion status? Does it apply to the ] as he was born in Ireland before the act of Union, does it apply to the ]?
	::::::#"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" You have said that it is not about changing the values from one system of measurement to another, but about altering the sequence in which they are presented.
			== History ==
	::::::#"any editor who systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without clear consensus" You have said this is nothing to do with the MOS, yet if it is not to do with the MOS then how does one defined a "clear consensus" Usually changing articles to comply with the MOS is seen as following consensus broadly defined, so what is your definition for "clear consensus"?
			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.
	::::::#Edit war does not cover your concern over people moving from one article to another systematically rearranging the order.
	::::::#], as nearly every British editor and many other editors will have edited the "topic area" (as defined in ] who exactly do you think are going to be the administrators to enforce these sanctions?
			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.
	::::::#" bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" what is the "topic" and what are "closely related topics"?
	::::::#"Notifications must be logged at the general sanctions page to be effective." What does "Notifications" mean?
			== Technology ==
	::::::At a practical level there must be at least 100,000 biographies about British people on the system, 10s of thousands of articles about places, I can not even guess how many history pages, who is going work out to which talk pages to add templates? You can not use British English templates that already exist because they do not relate to the UK (eg ]). If there is no warning template presumably the sanctions do not apply.
			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.
	::::::-- ] (]) 13:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::No talk templates would be necessary. Notifications would be issued to editors who change units from value to the other in UK-related issues. These notifications would be the same as for any other general sanctions, no different. I know you are familiar with them, as you've issued them before. The process of notification is described at ]. The notification would be logged. Then, if they caused disruption as specified by the sanctions, an administrator could sanction them. "Consensus" refers to talk page consensus, which the MoS defers to in matters of units. If you took the time read the MoS section on units, you'd see that talk page consensus is more important than the guidelines. In the event of a dispute over what units to make primary, it says in a footnote, discussion on the talk page should decide what units are appropriate. The "topic" is units of measurement in the United Kingdom. I'm fairly certain that you're aware than at "uninvolved administrator" is one that did not partake in the dispute, and there are plenty of administrators who do not systematically flip units around. In fact, I've never met one that did. The scope is clear. Articles with strong ties solely to the United Kingdom, as opposed to other English-speaking countries. That means that articles that only have strong ties to the UK, such as ], would be covered. Altering the sequence is changing the values. ] — ] 14:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	:I'm giving some thought to closing this thread, simply because it has gone on at length and I don't see what is going on at that requires continued discussion at this page. Perhaps participants could move it elsewhere voluntarily? Or show why it absolutely has to be here?--] (]) 15:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	::General sanctions are always established at ]. ] — ] 16:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
			== Impact ==
	:::I know, but the best that can be said on that score is "no consensus" at present. You need to build some support, and that's not obviously present right now.--] (]) 17:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
			Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including:
	::::How can you say that? The only person that is vehement opposed is PBS. Otherwise, there is a well of support. Are you going to allow PBS a filibuster on this proposal? I've tried working with him, as you can see above. ] — ] 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
			* Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions.
	:::::Then perhaps one idea is for you to ping them, and the others who have expressed support or oppose to various versions, to come back and re-engage to see if there is consensus on your most recent language. I think it needs to be seen that there is broad agreement to the same thing. Because some of those !votes are three weeks old, and a lot of discussion has passed since then.--] (]) 17:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
			* Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups.
	*{{ping|Wee Curry Monster}}{{ping|Nyttend}}{{ping|Roxy the dog}}{{ping|Blackmane}}{{ping|Eric Corbett}}{{ping|VandVictory}}{{ping|NebY}}{{ping|Lesser Cartographies}}{{ping|Michael Glass}}{{ping|NE Ent}}{{ping|Kahastok}}{{ping|Sjones23}}{{ping|The Rambling Man}}{{ping|Waggers}} Per ]'s suggestion above, I am pinging all editors that have participated here. Please evaluate the newest wording proposal, at the top of this section. ] — ] 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	::New ping per above: {{ping|Callanecc}}{{ping|Psychonaut}}{{ping|Boson}} ] — ] 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
			These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.
	:*'''Support'''&mdash;The value (in my opinion) lies not in how many tendentious editors will be blocked, but rather in putting up a big, red, rotating sign that says "Danger, don't poke here." Perfect language to do this doesn't exist; the current proposal is more than adequate to communicate what needs to be communicated. ] (]) 20:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	:*'''Support''' Its one editor who has not experienced the particular frustration of being in the middle of two warring parties who has spun out what was a clear consensus for this. There has been a desperate need for some measure to stop the nuisance of constant battles over trivia. Long overdue. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]]</span><sub>]</sub> 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
			== References ==
	*I basically agree with Lesser Cartographies and Curry Monster, but would make further comments.
			* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech)
			* (https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024)
	:I think that PBS does raise some good points. In most circumstances we ''would'' consider aligning an article with the MOS to be editing with the global consensus. While RGloucester is right that the MOS does encourage talk page discussion and deliberately leaves room for exceptions where there are genuinely good reasons for them, there is the question of what happens where there are not, and whether we should just freeze those inconsistencies in time (and note that this is an open question - some have advocated this independently of these sanctions). I also think that a specific reference to switching the order of units may be useful as this is primarily what we mean when we say "changes values from one system of measurement to another". Most measurements in most cases should have a conversion regardless.
			* (https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)
			</pre>
	:But in other areas I think PBS is not right. Strong national ties is a fairly standard description, and ultimately what matters is what rule is being applied. If the UK rule is being applied, then the sanctions may apply. If consensus is that the UK rule does not apply, then normal editing conditions apply. If people are disputing as to whether the UK rule applies or not, then we can apply sanctions if they are judged to be appropriate. Sanctions are not going to be applied by bots but by admins who (we would hope) can tell if/when somebody is deliberately interpreting this point too broadly or too narrowly. Worst comes to the worst, we can discuss the individual case here.
	:All in all, so long as we are clear that "changes values from one system of measurement to another" includes switching the order of units, I feel that my concerns are outweighed by the benefits of the proposal and thus I would '''support'''. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I think it is fairly clear that "changes values from one system of measurement to another" means switching the order. I can't think of any better way to word it, and I think it is clear. If you have a ] alternative wording for that phrase, feel free to propose it. ] — ] 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	:*'''Support''' There's just too much being invested by disruptive editors in such a small matter as this. Having lived in the UK, I've found that most people will use one or the other simply through familiarity, personally I learnt to convert between various imperial and metric systems out of courtesy to others even though by trade I deal with metric measurements. Misplaced Pages should be catering to all readers regardless of their preferences. ] (]) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	:* '''Support''' <small>]</small> 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	:*'''Support''' That wording is fine, good job ]. ]] 08:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:*'''Support''' ] (]) 04:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	:*'''Support''' Sanctions are needed, as discussed above. The wording is adequate and viable. ] (]) 13:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	:*'''Support''' as long as it is clear that swapping the order per ] is covered. ] (]) 18:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::I've been thinking about this. Would it be a good idea to put the words "(including switching the displayed primary unit with the conversion)" or something to that effect after "systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another"? It makes it a bit longer and I think it's understood now that it's included but I think it's worth making it explicit. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::Perhaps ''any editor who changes the order of presentation or systematically changes values from one system of measurement to another without ...'' - as an aside we keep using '''primary''' and '''secondary''' which I think signals the wrong impression, the MoS also has the same issue. ] (]) 11:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::I think recent changes to the MOS have actually made those words a bit more prominent, and I think you may have a point about them. I would be happy with your wording - but do we need to get ensure that "systematically" applies to changing the order of presentation as well? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 12:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::You're making it more complicated than is necessary. This is clearly what the existing text refers to. Remember, it is not the editor's interpretation of the text that matters, but the uninvolved administrator's. There is no chance for Wiki-lawyering, and anyone can refer to this discussion to confirm it if it necessary. The text of this discussion becomes the "community decision" that authorises the sanctions. There is nothing unclear about the present wording. Please don't get further bogged down in details. ] — ] 15:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I agree with RGloucester but I'd put it more strongly; if we carry on re-drafting, we will never have these sorely needed sanctions. The current wording is adequate for the task. It's futile to seek perfection; other sanctions aren't perfectly worded either, but they work nevertheless. ] (]) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::If there is one thing I have learnt on this topic, and in observing other sanctions dealing with editors liable to Wikilawyer, it is that it is very unusual for there to be genuinely "no chance for Wiki-lawyering". It helps if things are tied down and it helps if admins wanting to enforce the sanction don't have to wade through this much text.
	:::::::If there is this much resistance to a change in the wording, perhaps an alternative would be for the closer - if they find consensus for the point and if they find that this interpretation has consensus (and no-one has objected to it so far) - to mention the point explicitly in the close? '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::{{ping|Kahastok}} There is resistance for a few reasons. Firstly, it will make the wording extremely complicated and clunky for no good reason. Secondly, we are not writing a constitution here. We should mirror what other sanctions use. There is no need specify every little thing. Thirdly, such "re-draughting" is only likely to result in further delays. Fourthly, it is quite clear what the existing phrasing means. There is absolutely no ambiguity. However, I somehow managed to think of a clearer wording that might satisfy you, and have implemented it. It is "who systematically changes the system of measurement used to present a value without ]". How's that? ] — ] 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::{{ping|RGloucester}} please restore your post of 18 October 2014 to its original state. It is that wording which others have discussed and for which they've expressed their support or opposition. Changing it now makes parts of the subsequent discussion incomprehensible and renders it difficult if not impossible for any closing admin to evaluate the expressions of support and whether they are still applicable. ] (]) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The text has undergone many changes, and has been evolving constantly. There is no change in meaning with my edit, but it merely clarifies something that multiple editors have asked for clarification on. The text must be able to evolve. I've been making incremental changes since the start of this discussion, to bring it in line with the ideas that people have brought to the table. I don't even remember what this text look liked on 18 October. I'm sure it looked very different. ] — ] 18:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::{{ping|RGloucester}} you had made no changes to that text since you pinged editors on 28 October 2014 except for wikilinking "consensus". You have been here long enough to know that you should not refactor discussions. Kahastok's suggestion for the close is a good one; let it be. ] (]) 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::I posted it first on 18 October (not "28 October"), and have made multiple minor changes since, as far as I'm aware. If you want me to go through the edit history and find them, fine. I don't even know what "refactoring" means. If you'd like to revert it, go ahead. I don't particularly care, one way or the other, because they both mean the same exact thing. I'm getting fed up with this bureaucratic nonsense, however. Editors need to be more flexible and pragmatic. ] — ] 18:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::{{done}}. I checked from 28 October because that's when you pinged editors to respond per Wehwalt's suggestion and they began to respond. Do read ]. ] (]) 18:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::(ec with both above) TBH it still reads to me like it could be Wikilawyered as excluding switching the order of units. I've seen it insisted before that nothing in policy or guidelines - including in ] and at the top of ] - suggests, implies or otherwise indicates that there is any problem at all with switching order of units on UK-related articles on an industrial scale solely for reasons of personal preference, so I am particularly concerned about this. You ''have'' to expect Wikilawyering in this area and pin the wording down to prevent it. Now, we all know that this is the behaviour we're talking about, but an admin not familiar with the ins and outs of MOSNUM might not, which is why I suggest that a reword or a comment in the close might be of benefit. Note that no redrafting is required for a comment in the close.
	:::::::::Part of the reason I mention the closer is because in a previous - particularly poisonous - discussion where I felt the result was going to be Wikilawyered, I asked a set of questions for the closer which were duly answered in the close. With the answers right there, at the top of the discussion, anyone looking at the consensus could see what had been agreed, and that it was quite different to what the Wikilawyer-in-chief was already claiming that it was. This gave me a lot more confidence that the result would be robust and harder to Wikilawyer. As it happens, touch wood, we've never revisited that discussion. How much this is to do with the questions answered in the close and how much to do with the indefinite block of said Wikilawyer-in-chief a month later is impossible to say. I suspect the latter, but the greater confidence that the close gave us was still welcome. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::I'll be honest in saying that I see a bit of (perhaps warranted) paranoia in your replies here. There is no perfect wording. No one will confuse this. It is very clear that any disruption of this kind would be sanctionable. As I said before, though, what MOSNUM says is quite irrelevant. This is not about enforcing MOSNUM, but about stopping disruptive behaviour. Consensus here has determined that such systematic changes are disruptive, and hence sanctionable. I'm fine with the idea that closer should mention this. If you'd like me to revert to the old wording, I'll do it. Regardless, even if this was somehow portrayed as "not referring to switching unit order", it would still be sanctionable under the "who otherwise disruptively edits". The only way to appeal such a sanction would be at ], where it would be easy to make clear whether whatever such an editor did was disruptive or not. There is literally no room for whatever "Wikilawyering" is. There are too many protections in place, such as the necessity for an ] appeal, and the clauses about "general disruption". ] — ] 18:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	===Process===
	*'''Comment''' as this section is fairly short I have turned this into an RfC so that a wider community consensus can be sought. I have done this rather than start a new section for a RfC as it is unreasonable to ask those that have expressed an opinion within the last 24 hours to do so again. -- ] (]) 10:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I strongly oppose this unilateral action by you, PBS, to turn my wording into an RfC. I've removed the template. ] — ] 12:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	From the history of the page:
	*13:31, 29 October 2014‎ PBS (→‎Moving forward: Second Try for an RfC)
	*13:40, 29 October 2014‎ RGloucester (Make your own section if you want an RfC. I don't.)
	I don't believer that this section belongs to you! So under what right are you reverting edits made by me? If I create another section for an RfC, opinions will be split over two different sections. This is not fair on people who have already made their opinions clear, and needlessly complicates the RfC, but if you insist I will create a section below this one. -- ] (]) 13:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	::You are adding an RfC template in conjunction with my words, in a way that would be misleading. It implies that I support this so-called "RfC". I have repeatedly said I do not. In fact, I believe that any opening of an RfC at this stage would be disruptive. No RfC is necessary. The only one that seems to think so is you, and furthermore, no other general sanctions ever were established by RfC. If you want to start an RfC, you should draft a proposal. Do not use my proposal for your RfC. ] — ] 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::@] For someone who is seeking the consensus of the community to bring in some general sanctions, I find it extraordinary that you would not want to include as many people as possible in building that consensus and are trying to block an RfC on the issue!
	:::The RfC does not in any way alter what you have said. It does not imply that you support the RfC, and that is not the issue. Your have twice removed an RfC what the RfC process says is "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. '''Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased.''' An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator." My emphasis. You are free to state under the RfC that you do not support the RfC if you so wish but you are not free to removed it for that reason.
	:::If you will not let me place the RfC banner at the top of this section then I will create a new one at the bottom and I will use you proposed wording because that is for which you are seeking to gain consensus. As I have said it will be inconvenient for those who have already expressed an opinion in this straw poll and could easily lead to confusion, hence the reason I think it better to convert this section into a RfC. -- ] (]) 18:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::In fact, it shows bad faith on your part. It singles my proposal out amongst all other general sanctions proposals, and puts a bureaucratic block in front of it. Not because of any particular policy or guideline, but because of one editor's opposition. You do not have a right to filibuster this proposal, nor do you have a right to unilaterally force bureaucratic measures on it. I will not allow you to use my wording for any RfC of yours. If you'd like to make a proposal, write one up and then start an RfC. My wording is not going to be used in any RfCs requested unilaterally by you. I will follow the established procedure for general sanctions proposals. I will not be made to jump through hoops at your behest. If you continue to disrupt this proposal, I will be forced to open a thread at ]. ] — ] 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	I have posted an ANI over the issue of an RfC. See ] -- ] (]) 17:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Proposal to remove the topic ban of Lucia Black from Japanese entertainment topics ==
	{{collapse top|The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.}}
	{{archive top|'''No consensus for change. Topic ban remains in place'''. ] Whether or not anyone believes there ''should'' be a topic ban, there is the perception of one and perception is reality in this case as violating that will be enforced. The ban was instated in ''August'' and more than two months later, absent small editing at ] (admittedly for a serious GA review), there's been drama ''about'' the prior drama. It's been a two-month status quo so I don't see how that's creating ''additional'' sanctions. Again, it wasn't that the editing ''at'' the Japanese entertainment articles that was problematic but that the editing ''about'' the Japanese entertainment articles created problems. There are very few people that cause disruption no matter what they do, it's usually a particular topic. Now, there is a distinct difference between arguing ''about'' the topic ban and accepting it to argue ''to remove'' it. If Lucia Black wants to argue the former, there's always ARBCOM but I'd put odds on being blocked entirely to prevent further disruption if we go that route. There are more than four and a half million articles here. Find something else to work on. If Lucia Black wants to argue the later, it seems like fairly reasonable editors ask to see that there is editing outside the topic in an adult manner and an acknowledgement about the prior problems. }}
	At ], a topic ban of ] from Japanese entertainment topics was enacted. I'd like to propose that the topic ban be rescinded, leaving in place Lucia Black's topic ban from ] and related articles, the prohibition on Lucia Black starting threads at AN/ANI without permission, and any other previously existing topic bans on Lucia Black that might be in place. I have not consulted with Lucia Black on this, but was reminded of that discussion because Lucia Black mentioned me on Jimbo Wales' talk page (and then posted on my talk page as I started writing this).
	I want to acknowledge that I do think Lucia Black was disruptive at AN/ANI (including in the thread where the Japanese entertainment topic ban was enacted), and also that I think the topic ban from Ghost in the Shell and related articles was well deserved. I also acknowledge that Lucia Black seems to think that a group of editors are out to get her, and doesn't seem to understand that she actually has been annoying and disruptive in AN/ANI discussions. I thought that the proposal for a full site ban on Lucia Black was reasonable (even though I probably would have voted against a site ban had I voted).
	Despite that, I feel the topic ban on Lucia Black should be removed for the following reasons:
	1. Lucia Black was in general working productively with other editors on Japanese entertainment related subjects. For example, see ] and ], from just before the topic ban was enacted. Because Lucia Black was already working productively in the area from which she was topic banned, the topic ban doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Suggesting that Lucia Black should show good work elsewhere before the topic ban is overturned also doesn't make sense to me, as again, she was already doing good work. The only areas where she was really causing problems were Ghost in the Shell and AN/ANI, and she already had separate topic bans for those areas. While she was continuing to be disruptive in those specific areas, topic banning her from other places where she wasn't being disruptive just makes no sense.
	2. While I'm not entirely sure what subject area everyone edits in, the impression I got was that the people in favor of both a site ban and a topic ban were primarily people who have interacted with Lucia Black at AN/ANI, and that people who have interacted with Lucia Black on Japanese entertainment articles were mostly opposed to any sort of further sanctions. It seems nonsensical to me for her to be topic banned from Japanese entertainment when the people who work in that subject area don't want her topic banned.
	3. Because a topic ban was proposed as more of an aside and not as the main subject of the discussion (which was instead for a full site ban), I think many people didn't mention that they were against it when they otherwise would have. For myself at least, had I realized that that a topic ban was a possible outcome of the discussion, I would have probably participated and voted against a topic ban. I think the consensus of the discussion likely would have been different had a topic ban been proposed directly, separate from the discussion of a site ban.
	I want to apologize for taking up any more of anyone's time with this discussion. I know some users (e.g., Hasteur, Robert McClenon, and Salvidrim!) expressed frustration with how much time has been wasted on issues related to Japanese entertainment and Lucia Black specifically. I want to remind everyone that you don't have to respond to this thread (or any thread on Lucia Black, anime, or whatever) if you think your time could be more productively spent elsewhere. I've created this discussion because I personally think that Lucia Black was making good contributions, and that those contributions outweigh any time wasted on AN/ANI. I ask that anyone responding here please consider first and foremost whether the topic ban is useful for the subject to which it applies, Japanese entertainment, rather than focusing on AN/ANI. ] (]) 21:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' - Her drama wasted too much time of constructive editors, and until the very end, she refused to concede '''any''' sort of responsibility towards her actions. Zero awareness of the issues. As far as she's ever let on, she attributes her topic ban 100% to "people out to get her", and "0% her combative and disruptive edits". I can't support repealing it with that sort of attitude. ] ] 21:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::But what does any of that have to do with ''Japanese entertainment''? I agree that Lucia has wasted tons of time of people here at AN/ANI, and been really rude to people here, and doesn't acknowledge that she has been wrong here, but again, I don't understand why she would be topic banned from Japanese entertainment articles because of it. ] (]) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Because that's where all the disruption happens. I don't see what's not to get. ] ] 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::But the disruption doesn't happen there, it happens here, at AN/ANI. I've had ] on my watch list for many years, and I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive there. Likewise, I can't remember ever seeing her be disruptive on any anime-related article I've had watchlisted (though obviously she was disruptive on Ghost in the Shell, which isn't one I've watchlisted). ] (]) 22:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I'm guessing you don't spend much time at ] then? She was disruptive with countless video game articles. I'm pretty sure a discussion at WP:VG that spurred the topic ban discussions. Couple all that with her endless issues with the Ghost in the Shell anime/manga articles, and it's pretty easy how they came up with a "Japanese Entertainment" description - the issues occur with Japanese video games, manga, and anime. Unless there's a fourth kind of Japanese entertainment she wants to edit, that this topic ban is impeding on, the end decision made a lot of sense. ] ] 23:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I don't spend time at WP:VG, so I wouldn't be aware of any disruption there. Ghost in the Shell was an exception to her normal behavior from what I personally witnessed. If there was a lot of disruption talking place elsewhere, then I admit the topic ban makes more sense. ] (]) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm honestly rather surprised you're going through such lengths to change her topic ban. . ] ] 02:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	:I've notified Lucia Black of this discussion per the page instructions, though I told her I personally don't think she should post here. However, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for me to notify ] and ]. My thought is that would be appropriate since they are subject areas to which this pertains, as long as the notices are worded in a neutral fashion, but I wanted to make sure first. ] (]) 22:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	*<del>'''Oppose''' removal of TBAN altogether, because Lucia hasn't provided any evidence that she even acknolwedges her problems, and has made no effort whatsoever to reassure the community that she will not continue the same behaviour. '''Propose narrowing'''/clarification of scope from "{{tq|Japanese entertainment}}" to "{{tq|Japanese anime and manga, broadly construed}}", because I think it maintains the usefulness of the scope, while providing a somewhat clearer guideline.</del> I also wish to thank {{u|Sergecross73}} for letting me know I had been mentioned on AN, because {{u|Calathan}} certainly failed to do so. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 22:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Salvidrim!, I'm sorry for not notifying you. I initially had your name and the other names I listed linked so that the notification system would automatically alert you that you had been mentioned. However, then I thought that might be rude, since I was specifically mentioning you because I thought you had felt this subject was a waste of time. I didn't want to seem like I was intentionally wasting your time, so I removed the wikilinks. It seems clear that you felt it was rude not to notify you, so I'm sorry for doing that. ] (]) 23:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{cot}}
	:::Also, I don't think that proposed narrowing makes sense. ] commented above that he thinks Lucia has been disruptive on ], so if a topic ban is warranted, then removing them from the scope wouldn't seem to make sense. ] (]) 23:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I do feel this is a waste of time, and I'm glad you realize that much, but notifying people you mention on AN/ANI isn't just suggested, it's ''required''. As for the scope, "{{tq|Japanese entertainment}}" doesn't even come close to being analoguous to "video games". Most issues at WP:VG, IMO, centered on animanga-related video games, and these would obviously be covered under "{{tq|Japanese anime and manga, broadly construed}}". A topic ban is meant as an intermediary measure meant to try and avoid banning the user entirely; if there is continued disruption outside of the scope of the topic ban, that can be dealt with separately. I just think "{{tq|Japanese entertainment}}" can be vague and that my proposed scope serves both Lucia '''and''' the community better by being more focused and unambiguous. Under the current scope, ] games can be considered "Japanese entertainment", while ] games wouldn't; that sort of illogical thing should be avoided whenever possible. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 23:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I thought it was only required to notify people whom a topic is about, not those mentioned in passing. The big orange banner that appears doesn't say to notify anyone you mention, but to notify anyone you start a topic about. I've never heard the requirement to notify anyone just mentioned come up in ANI discussions before, and I read those frequently. Anyway, I don't understand the statement ""{{tq|Japanese entertainment}}" doesn't even come close to being analoguous to "video games"" . . . I don't think I suggested anything of the sort. I do understand what you are getting at though. I personally don't think the sanctions are useful, but if people do think they should remain, then it does make sense for them to be unambiguous. ] (]) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{cob}}		{{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)
	:*Revised: '''Support''' return to previous status quo (TBAN from GiTS, IBAN with Chris, BAN from AN/ANI, probation enabling pagebans when necessary); the last time she appealed this, then I let myself get carried away by the mob and proposed a siteban without any additional justification other than a feeling of wasted time fueled by my own lack of neutrality. That discussion resulted in the intermediate "result" of the current broad TBAN, and while I think the consensus could've been read either way (I'm not faulting the closer), I do know the discussion wasn't started with a constructive intention and that my own lack of detachment inevitably swayed the community's feel and doomed Lucia unfairly. I apologize for previously acting highly dismissive of Lucia, who, despite everything else, does remain a dedicated (if passionate) contributor. I don't think the current broad TBAN is preventing disruption. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 21:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	*{{ec|4}}'''Oppose''' at this time. This request seems to challenge the validity of the topic ban on several grounds, such as that those supporting sanctions were too far removed from Lucia Black's encyclopedia work to cogently evaluate the situation (essentially the opposite logic in ]), and that the topic ban is too broad (though Calathan also seems to state that the siteban proposal was reasonable, even if he/she would not have supported it). Honestly, I don't find these arguments convincing. If Lucia Black is editing productively in another area and the topic ban had outlived its usefulness, some rolling back of the editing restrictions could be considered. But a facial challenge to the validity of the ban just doesn't seem right. What I find disturbing is the suggestion that AN/ANI regulars should just ignore Lucia Black's disruption of those fora in recognition of her positive contributions, rather than call for sanctions. This ignores the critical problem of unseen disruption—nascent editors who just stop editing when they encounter difficulties. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 22:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I do agree strongly that working well with other editors is important, and in general think it is more important than writing good content. If I thought Lucia Black was scaring away editors from Japanese entertainment articles, I would be in favor of topic banning her from there. However, I instead think Lucia Black is working well with other people on Japanese entertainment articles, which is why I don't think she should be topic banned from there (I do however, think strongly that she should be topic banned from AN/ANI). ] (]) 23:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	*(Edit conflict x 2) '''Weak support'''. I didn't think she deserved to be banned from this stuff in the first place, and back then I voted accordingly, but her behavior wasn't flawless and she hasn't demonstrated any willingness to correct the problems there were. ] (]) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''- I thought the topic ban was unnecessarily harsh, overly broad in scope, and vindictive. It's been several months without disruption so the ban is clearly not accomplishing anything useful now, if it ever did, which I doubt. ] <sub>]</sub> 00:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	::The bans purpose was to end her all excessively combative arguments. There haven't been any Lucia incidents since it was enacted. How can you say it accomplished nothing? ] ] 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::On the overwhelming majority of articles she's banned from, there was never a problem in the first place. The ban is unnecessarily broad and given the, I'll be blunt, ''sneaky'' way it was enacted I do not think it should stand. ] <sub>]</sub> 01:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I agree, we are talking about a large swath of articles here. to compare its like being blocked from editing all articles related to sports because bad choices were made on a superbowl article. - ] (]) 02:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' This support is coming from someone who works on anime/manga related articles, I feel that Lucia had already upset a certain group of editors and an excuse was looked for to drive the final nail in. - ] (]) 02:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' Even if this is going to end up with ''clear oppose'', ''no consensus'', I have a thought that she has been changed. Knowing what type of discussion these editors had, she could have been blocked forever, may be she has learned something from the topic ban. She is eager to make useful contributions to this topic and so, the topic ban can be removed. ] (]) 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	*<del>'''Support'''</del> - I was the original proposer of the topic-ban, as a "compromise" between a warning and a site-ban. I see no evidence that she has learned her lesson, to stop creating drama. However, she has served time that, for her, amounts almost to a site-ban. I am willing to see her topic-ban lifted on two conditions. First, it should be understood that any further public quarreling with other editors, at which she is a champion, will result in a two-month to six-month block. Second, since we don't know whether she has learned that lesson, she should continue to be topic-banned from any filings at ] or ]. She doesn't acknowledge that she has learned her lesson, but ] applies. If she doesn't know that she can hang herself with 14 feet of rope, we don't need to protect her. Lift the ban for now. Leave the ban on drama board filings in place. <del>] (]) 02:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)</del>
	*'''Neutral''' - Lucia: When you are in a hole, quit digging. When you are in a tunnel, quit accusing others of tunnel vision. ] (]) 20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' {{ping|Robert McClennon}} Are you personally offended by the idea of someone having tunnel vision? its not a crazy accusation or anything. It only suggest that someone is far too focused on a single goal that it impairs them to see other perspectives.
	:*Can you clarify what you mean when you say "any further public quarreling with other editors, at which she is a champion"? Debates are a part of Misplaced Pages. - ] (]) 03:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Procedural oppose'''. Bans should be appealed by the user that is banned, not by a third party. Until we actually hear from Lucia Black here, I don't think this request is actionable. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	:*Is it a written rule though? Lucia is currently barred from posting on the admin boards so I do not see how she can appeal her case. - ] (]) 11:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''' - There is a simultaneous discussion going on at ] that others may be interested in reviewing. For myself I stick by my original point. Despite Lucia Black's protestations to the contrary, I am highly skeptical that she is unable to edit in other areas to demonstrate her capacity to collaborate with other editors in a WP:CIVIL manner. I'm neither for nor against the current ban, but I understand why it was placed and I don't think bans should be treated lightly. Unfortunately I also can't agree with Calathan's description of Lucia Black's past problematic behavior as being restricted to the GitS articles and AN/ANI. I'd love to see her prove herself elsewhere for a period to allow the community to see a positive record of her conflict-free editing. If she can participate productively in an area she hasn't worked before that would seriously undermine the claims that she is nothing but a hardened WikiWarrior. Again I am quite doubtful that she is actually incapable of editing other areas. It worries me that she seems much more bent on getting her sanctions lifted as if they were a mistake or an unwarranted abuse of power rather than acknowledging and addressing her own behavioral problems. -] (]) 04:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Procedural oppose''' until a request is lodged by Lucia. I'd be leaning oppose anyway but a persuasive statement and understanding of the issues involved from Lucia would be appreciated. ] (]) 10:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' If anything shows a battleground mentality, it was the repeated calls for a site ban every time Lucia Black came up on AN/I. The only reason those individuals settled for the broad topic ban because the topic ban was effectively a soft site ban. Given that Lucia's area of interest and expertise was in Japanese-related media, they knew that she had almost no chance of having the ban repealed. Second, as Calathan has pointed out, the editors who most worked with Lucia unemphaticly opposed the topic ban. Third, the topic ban was entirely the result of Lucia appealing her previous topic ban, which she felt was unfairly placed. '''If an editor asks for a review or appeal of a sanction, additional sanctions should not be put in placed.''' And finally, why are Lucia's biggest harassers complaining that they weren't notified? Think about it for a moment because that exemplifies their battleground mentality. So not only do I support the lifting of the topic ban, but also propose an IBan/topic ban on Sergecross73 and Salvidrim! on all topics involving Lucia Black. —''']'''&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 11:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	**"{{tq|effectively a soft site ban}}" - I , TheFarix, but I find this sort of comment to be frankly harmful to Lucia Black. Why tell an editor that collaboration with others in an area outside of her comfort zone is impossible for her? Honestly this line of argument strikes me as completely lacking in credibility. It's an attack on Lucia's capacity to locate and judge 3rd party sources for reliability and on her capacity to conduct research to learn about topics she is not already familiar with ''ab origine''. The sad thing is that she herself is susceptible to believing these slanders against her. How about a little encouragement for a friend rather than undermining her? -] (]) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	**Salv was just upset that he was mentioned by name but not pinged. Valid complaint at AN/ANI. I didn't complain about not being pinged at all. All I've done is comment. I have not started any discussions, or done any sanctions against her, ever. I may be in support of the topic ban, but I've done nothing out of line to warrant an interaction ban. (Nor has Salv for that matter.) ] ] 12:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Obvious oppose''' A removal of a topic ban requires 2 things: proof of extensive positive and drama-free work outside the topic area, and proof that the editor has a "method" of avoiding the problems that led to the topic ban in the future. Yes, someone else can show the former, but only the bannee can convince the community of the latter. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	::'''Oppose'''. Per above. This has been stated several times throughout this but it seem like few really care/noticed. ] (]) 12:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Comment'''. When we reject unban requests, unblock requests, and the like, the failed request is often seen as a negative thing for the affected editor, and if failed requests are repeated frequently enough, we'll say "no more". Should this unban request fail, we mustn't see it as a stain against Lucia, since she didn't originate it. ] (]) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
	**I generally concur, but with a caveat. This request is not so much an unban request but a challenge to the original ban discussion's closure (as well as, in part, a relitigation of the same issues that were handled by the prior discussion). I think a subsequent request based on the same rationale should turn on the outcome of this discussion, regardless of who brings it. Evaluating the original ban discussion closure does not require the same degree of scrutiny, care, or involvement of the banned party that a normal unban request does. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 23:45, 21 October 2014 (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)
	*'''Support (by being the subject)''' per {{u|Nick}}'s {{u|Mr. Stradivarius}} desire to hear my opinion. I would definitely wish this topic-ban to be appealed. What i want to say more or less is mostly on TheFarix's has been saying and {{u|Calathan}}'s opening statement. I believe that the community in ] are far more informed on the situation than those who know me only through AN / ANI. After all, we're talking about the subject in which i am currently banned indefinitely from and the community dedicated to improving it.
			*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)
	:A lot of times i'm being asked for change. And to be brutally honest...i dont think the ones asking for it will ever see it regardless. The only way i think people will genuinely see change is if they And i'm here to tell you that, i was showing those signs before the additional sanctions were added. Even during the proposal of the additional sanctions, i treated {{u|Salvidrim}} with respect, and didn't attack him or used battleground-like words shown in ]. So as you can see, i have definitely been improving, even with pressure of additional sanctions on top of me. But if we all see this objectively and treat this as any other case, you might be surprised to see the glaring holes, as other members have noticed. I believe a lot of this is tunnel vision.
			*:You've been working around username issues a long time, and doing a lot of good work. I think you have the necessary experience and judgement to see that there was not a blatant violation here. I really feel like we're falling down in our treatment of new users who aren't behaving maliciously but just don't understand what Misplaced Pages is and how it works. I assure you I'm not trying to have anyone burned at the stake here, I just think we need to address these issues and be more willing to undo obviously incorrect actions without waiting as long as it takes for the admin who made the error to explain themselves. ] ] 23:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I get it, but sometimes I like to make sure that I haven't missed something. ] (]) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I'll repeat something I said in {{slink|User_talk:Tamzin#Administrative_culture}}: {{tq2|I think the root problem here is with ]. It begins <q>Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators.</q> I mean. ''Fucking seriously?'' Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration ]. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block. &nbsp;...{{pb}}So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If another admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::I don't think the allowed actions in ] are all that problematic, though I do agree with you about the presumptions in the preamble. You can reverse if the following are met:
			*:::# Good cause
			*:::# Careful thought
			*:::# ''If the admin is '''presently''' available'': consultation. So shoot them a message, and if they don't respond within a reasonably short period of time, proceed anyway
			*:::Those three steps are not very restrictive. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::They might not be very restrictive in theory, but they are in practice. It's far easier to get desysopped for a bad unblock than for a bad block. In effect the rule becomes that you need to not just try to talk with the admin, but actually need their permission. That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy. Or to put it more simply: We can't all be Beeblebrox. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Thank god for Beeblebrox then... We can't have all the admins form a ]... Somebody has to be the "bad brick" for the larger society to function. ] (]) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::{{tqb|That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy.}}Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to having this become a policy. Of course, there should be some latitude for the blocking admin's discretion, but a block with no ] explanation should be able to be reverted by another admin. ] (] · ]) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::We've had a parallel to this idea in deletion policy (]) for like forever, and the world's stubbornly refused to end. I do worry somewhat about the effect it'd have with ]. —] 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::As one of the relative newbies around here, I've kind of assumed that the RAAA thing with unblocks is a hangover from the Bad Old Days of wandering cowboy admins who needed rules like this to keep the wheel-warring in check. I don't tend to mind following this gentlemen's agreement, since I value the second look. But it's the admins who make the bad blocks that are also the least likely to be affable about you lifting them. Then we end up with the problem Tamzin's described. -- ] (]) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*It's great to welcome new users and assume good faith, but Misplaced Pages will be neck-deep in spam if junk like the above is not handled firmly. If I had seen it, I would have ground my teeth and moved on because why should I get heaps from people who think there is value in "{{tq|These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries.}}" There is more and more of this stuff, and soon people will be able to ask an AI bot to author and post their fluff on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:Literally nobody is arguing that the page was acceptable or that the deletion was incorrect. The issue is the subsequent block and making the user wait, blocked, until it was convenient for the blocking admin to respond. If you found yourself blocked for reasons that were manifestly incorrect, would you not expect and hope that reviewing admins would reverse it? ] ] 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::If I had been the user who posted that advert as their first edit, I would know why I had been blocked. ] (]) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::You seem to be entirely missing the point that this was an indef hard block because of the supposed combination of promotional edits ''and'' a promotional username, when there is literally no issue of any kind with the user name. We can AGF that this was simply an misclick, but we shouldn't pretend there is a real issue with the name because of it. ] ] 04:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*FWIW, I try to educate users as to why I have deleted their hard work with ] or ]. For the most part, I prefer to give them the opportunity to mend their ways in the context of ]. ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' It is important to try to facilitate that emergence, though sometimes a block is required to do so.] (]) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I want to second that ''Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out.'' (well, perhaps a slightly modified ''Inside every disruptive editor is potentially a constructive editor trying to get out.'') One of the people brought on to talk about wikipedia in a recent ] piece described a vandal to core editor conversion sparked in part by effective and positive engagement on their talk page. ] (]) 02:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I do think we, and I include myself here, have gotten too hardcore about blocking over one or two promo edits, in particular when they aren't even in article space. I'm working on some proposals to address this right now. ] ] 04:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Something that reiterates "we tell new users that their sandbox is for screwing around, don't CSD them for screwing around in it" would be hugely welcome. -- ] (]) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I just spent a few minutes chasing my tail looking for anything that makes it clear where the line is, and all I came up with is that you can't have attack content, copyvios, or other types of "not acceptable anywhere, period type of content. I didn't see anything about promotional content in sandboxes. If I've missed it somehow, someone please let me know where it is. ] ] 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{tl|Db-spamuser}} covers userpages, which I guess personal sandboxes are a subset of, that's all I could find. ] ] 05:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::No, there isn't anything clearly explaining where the line is, that's my point. I've seen quite a lot of "good faith" promo editing tagged for G11/U5 in sandboxes, editors blocked for having promo there, etc etc. I'll happily do the promo username+edits blocks or vaporize chatGPT nonsense, but deleting/blocking someone for sandbox edits when the template right in front of their eyes says it's for experimentation is really over-the-top bitey, imo. -- ] (]) 06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Maybe it's time we '''warn''' these users that sandboxes are not a completely safe haven to test whatever they want, because as I see it, the ] did not bring up the reasons why one edits in the sandbox might be deleted (whether from U5 or G11 or sth else). ]<sup>(])</sup> 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Please think about the long-term consequences of a rule saying that anyone can post anything so long as it is in their user space, or marked as "sandbox" or whatever. Will we wait a year to see if an SPA refashions their spam into an FA, then (if not) add a delete request tag, then discuss the deletion request? That won't scale. ] (]) 05:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. ] ] 06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::It seems pretty clear to me: it's potentially a gate to letting spam "articles" stick around 'because they're in sandboxes'. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::If a sandbox is ''clearly'' G11, and IMHO we've become overly inclusive of any COI editing as G11, then it should be deleted. But the creator needs to be educated as to ''why.'' And yes, I share the concern about people using Misplaced Pages for promotion, and I know some would leap at any loophole. ] (]) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::{{yo|Beeblebrox}} Ah, yes. The Ghost of Wheel-Wars Past. Before my time really, but you can still hear the chains rattle after nearly two decades. ] (]) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::As {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} correctly surmised, I use Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage script, and I'm aware that it's easy to select the wrong drop down, so I always check. However, it appears that in this case I still managed to fat finger an obviously incorrect rationale, ''mea culpa'', I can only apologise for that. I don't think that the G11 was incorrect, there's no policy that exempts spamming in userspace. I intended to block the account as being likely an UPE, given that their first edit was a full, highly promotional page about a company, and then left it for uninvolved admins to review the block. If asked, I always accept the reviewing admin's decision unless, rarely, they have missed something like socking or previous malpractice. I apologise again for the error I made, although I can't help thinking it could have been sorted out on my talk page rather than through ANI ] - ] 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:In response of {{ping|Mendaliv}}, {{u|DangerousPanda}} and {{u|AcidSnow}}. Allow me to inform you in the situation. Initially, I only asked to lessen the topic ban of all ] to just the article in question (not remove it entirely) according to where the disruption happened and was '''given permission by an administrator''' to bring it up in AN and ANI. As years of dispute would have lead to be unresolved, i believed that consensus by having every one else banned from the article except one person would be deemed harmful for the article when the time came to get true consensus would be asked.
			:::::::::::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)
			:::::::::::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)
			:::::::::::Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. ] (]) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. ] (]) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. ] (]) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. ] (]) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) ] (]) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::::::::{{reply|331dot}} as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and ''re''blocked them, ''that'' would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. ]'']''] 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::::And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. ] (]) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*On a related note, I think we need to sit down with ] and ] and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs ''trying to do volunteer work'' seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*"we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.{{pb}}There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Misplaced Pages for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —] 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:I vandalized Misplaced Pages with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Misplaced Pages because some grace was offered to them when'' they'' were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that , because who just ''knows'' wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? ''Very suspicious''.
			*:"They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the ''possibility'' to become one. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::There's a difference between vandalizing Misplaced Pages for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point {{u|Cryptic}} refers to). ] (]) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::{{ec}}As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —] 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to ]'s collections of your bad judgement? ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. ] (]) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I fail to see how {{tq|"331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined"}} is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged <s>would</s> could be over-pinging. ] (]) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::{{u|CommunityNotesContributor}} By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. ] (]) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::]: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. ] (]) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::::@] @]. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. ] (]) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::::Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. ] ] 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). ] (]) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- ] (]) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once ] style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would ], rendering my point somewhat moot. ] (]) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::{{tq|I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor}} me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- ] (]) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. ] (]) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*: {{tq| But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so}}. I present {{u|JohnCWiesenthal}} as a counterexample. {{pb}} Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. ] ] 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*::I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at {{no redirect|IntelliStar}} which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. ] (]) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			* I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; {{tq|Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems}} is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For ''advertising'' of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. ] (]) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			*:RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at ]. ] ] 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking ===
	:However {{u|Salvidrim}}, {{u|Sergecross73}}, and {{u|Hasteur}} were editors who ] for a site-ban over the same grounds. There was clearly no agreement with it, and had more or less stated that a topic ban would be most appropriate instead. But there was already a topic ban. So, i think if we ask ourselves or at least attempt to answer the question: What merited additional sanctions?
			* 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:
	:Overall, If we treat this as a discussion and less like a vote, i think that there will be less room for tunnel vision and will be able to consider all points, even previous points that were missed in the past. I believe, regardless of consensus, there was no new grounds for additional sanctions. ] (]) 02:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			*] has now been unblocked by Philknight, but the approach by 331dot was not very helpful or newbie-friendly
			*]: 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)
	===Arbitrary break===
	::Again, I have not "gamed the system" or "stonewalled" anything. People keep bringing Lucia to AN/ANI, and I comment. I don't start the discussions, propose the sanctions, or enact the statements. I comment in discussions. This is just Lucia trying to push the blame rather than take responsibility for her actions. ] ] 10:22, 22 October 2014 (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)
	:::Ok Sergecross, if you feel that way, can you please tell everyone under what new grounds was necessary to ban me from Japanese Entertainment indefinitely? ] (]) 10:47, 22 October 2014 (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)
	::::Whet do you mean ''if you feel that way?'' Do you see my name in your block log? At the place where we log bans? At the top of these proposals? No, you don't. It's not ''feeling'', I objectively didn't do those things. ] ] 11:38, 22 October 2014 (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)
	:'''Oppose''' Let's look for the hallmarks of a ''Lucia Black'' disruptive thread:
	::''White knights attempting to intercede for LB'' {{checkmark}}
	::''LB passing the buck on '''any''' responsibility that they may have had in the previous threads'' {{checkmark}}
	::''LB tendentiously nitpicking apart opposition viewpoints'' (See 02:54 post and 10:47 post)'' {{checkmark}}
	::''No plan for how LB indends to prevent the previous incidents from reoccuring'' {{checkmark}}
	::''Request for complete removal of sanctions rather than narrowing the existing sanctions'' {{checkmark}}
	::''Claiming a conspiracy by editors to prevent her from editing'' {{checkmark}}
	:No we've already given many editor-years and megabytes of argument to "How can Lucia Black return back to editing her preferred subject area?". Start the request over clean. Avoid the hallmarks that I've pointed out, and there might be a chance of success. As I recall I suggested Japanese entertainment as the scope of the topic ban is because the line between Anime/Manga/Video Games/Actors is so thin that arguments that start in one line of media riot over into the other media with very little encouragement (See also the "Ghost in the Shell" split/merge riot). Cutting off the entire topic area to prevent disruption around/with Lucia Black is not us punishing her, it's us protecting ourselves from disruption ] (]) 12:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			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)
	{{u|Sergecross73}} I don't want to argue about word choice. But i don't believe you are simply casting a vote. After all, you have responded heavily in the discussion and its not even trying to be a consistent argument. But i don't want to fight. I asked a genuine question. What did i do to deserve more sanctions? Can you please answer me this? And this isn't just for Sergecross. I think if we get this answered, we'll have our true consensus. '''What exactly did i do to deserve more sanctions regarding Japanese related media'''?
	{{u|Hasteur}} Most of it is unnecessary to argue about or even a point against me. but the most important points, i will say that are heavily inaccurate. I originally did ask for narrowing existing sanctions (not removing them completely) but the result was more sanctions on top of it over no new disruption within Japanese entertainment. So i rather have the '''new''' sanctions removed.
			:There are no deleted contributions. — ] (]) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	Conspiracy is a strong word, but i will say this to clarify. '''I don't believe in a secret underground anti-Lucia Black organization''' where they have a meeting every sunday and find ways to bother me. What i do believe is a group of editors that are human and just as imperfect as the next who have a case of tunnel vision. And for the record, other editors have felt far more strongly about it then i have recently. So if you don't want to prove it to me, prove it to the other well-intending editors who believe it. ] (]) 15:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			:I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- ] (]) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	:So, you want to pass the blame, take no accountability for your actions, make accusations at others while not answering any questions directed towards yourself, and then tack on a little "but I'm not here to argue" in there to make it all okay? This ] is what keeps getting you all these topics bans at AN/ANI and Japanese media related areas - and now you're using it as your approach to get un-topic banned? You may want to re-think this approach. Some of your supporters were contingent on you understanding what happened, taking responsibility for it, and providing a plan for keeping problems from happening again. You don't seem to understand any of this. ] ] 16:20, 22 October 2014 (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)
	::In response to Lucia: I do admit that I am human, that I am imperfect, and that my judgement may not be detached and neutral about this. I do feel tired of the drama surrounding the discussions about you, and that's probably a less-than-ideal POV from which to approach the discussion. I don't hate you specifically but I've reached my limit of how much idle ranting I'm able to respond to constructively. I admit my own shortcomings <small>(I wish you would do the same!)</small> and I hope that whatever closing admin will treat my opinion with the appropriate weight considering my serious involvement. I won't be surprised or disappointed if the full topic-ban is rescinded, and hope that if consensus does end up leaning that way, that you will be able to resume editing constructively, and hopefully never end up at AN/I again. It is an annoyance for me, but I can't begin to imagine how hard it must be for you to deal with this and if anything, I admire your dedication and persistence. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 16:41, 22 October 2014 (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====
	::{{ping|Sergecross73}} I'm only reiterating what {{u|TheFarix}} and {{u|Calathan}} have been saying that there was no additional grounds to add more sanctions on top of the ones that were established within hours. And i have taken accountability for my actions. I never denied that i was disruptive in the article in question. And that was taken accountability from the start when i originally only asked to narrow the Topic Ban, not remove it entirely. If you want to hear my full thoughts on it: i feel bad about it and thought it was a good idea to take a break from that specific article ] until i was confident that i can tackle the article again. However, to be brutally honest, i don't know exactly what to do when it comes to that specific article to avoid issues other than avoiding edit wars, especially with only two (now one) member involved. Of course i'll think twice and maybe thrice before even getting involved, but i'm not sure i can do it all and still reach a consensus. Not alone at least. The issue has always been lack of consensus for that specific article (not blaming lack of consensus, its just a factor that keeps me frustrated). And that's what worried me when i was banned from the other articles as well. Regardless, my main concern at the moment is the Topic Ban from "ALL" Japanese media related articles.
			{{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)
	::{{ping|Salvidrim!}} it does indeed take a lot to say what you have said, and i thank and respect you for it. I personally do take into consideration of my own actions as well. And that's what i have been trying to say before, but i guess to a few other editors and myself believe it evolved into something else when additional sanctions were being asked. The others who support the appeal (and myself) don't know what additional disruption i did in order to elevate the sanctions for Japanese media related articles. So when i'm asked what i can do to prevent this, i'm heavily unsure on what "it" is exactly. If we're talking about Japanese-related articles, i assure you i know how to handle myself the majority of the time. My Achilles' heel is based more on a specific article and specific editor involved. So avoiding that specific article and that specific editor combined will help me focus on editing other articles.
	::If we're talking about AN and ANI, i am trying my best at the moment to present myself in the best that i can, regardless if anyone agrees with me. And i apologize ahead of time for anything i have said to offend you. And it is taking me a much longer process to respond because i'm taking consideration as much as i can peoples feelings. ] (]) 17:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)		::Thanks, but the same happens with other editors as well. ], warned on 11 December, one edit (not constructive but not problematic either) to their own user page the same day, suddenly blocked a week later? Nothing in the filter log, no deleted pages. If it was a sock, an indication in the block log would help. ] (]) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::That one was reported to AIV (which is where most of my blocks come from) late last night. I misread the timestamps and hadn't realised they were a week old but didn't see anything to be gained by unblocking. ] &#124; ] 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::If there was any doubt that you had learned from previous incidents you've completely destroyed it. Again with the ''TL:DR'' rants and nitpicking apart the opposition. Kindly show yourself to a room with no exit because I (and I would assume many others) are tired of threads involving you and creating much heat for the amount of light we gain from them. ] (]) 18:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I dont think its too long to be read, but then again. A lot of what i'm saying is by repeat, with some new light. If the problem is that my comments are too long, perhaps dont get involved. And i'm trying my best to show you respect, i ask you to do the same. ] (]) 20:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::I think the "if you don't want to read everything I say then get out" mentality is precisely the wrong one for this discussion. We have a responsibility to make arguments concise and accessible as part of the consensus-making process. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 20:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Its more that ''if you don't want to, you don't have to. But don't hold it against the discussion.'' ] which suggest that it is a ] of ], ], ]. There was a much better way to do so. And overall, an argument shouldn't be dismissed simply because it was too long. You can ask me for a more concise version without using TL;DR. So basically, i'm being respectful, please give me the same courtesy. ] (]) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (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)
	===Too stressful===
			*: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)
	I personally am far too stressed of a lot of whats being said here. I believe perfection is expected out of me by a community who don't teach by example. And i rather be able to present my points neutrally without someone trying to look for a flaw in word choice. I also believe that this is toxic, and i dont think anything i say to the community will be happy about it.
			*::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)
	Its a stressful time. So i'm going to request for Arbitration. I think i'll be able to get far more fairer treatment there. Is it possible to request for arbitration instead? ] (]) 21:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	*"{{tq|I believe perfection is expected out of me by a community who don't teach by example.}}" - This stings, and rightly so in my opinion. I'm not happy about the way you have been (and are being) treated. I apologize for literally bashing you (although perhaps never very openly) and being generally dismissive of you. I let myself get carried away in the mob and I'm angry at myself for that. I'm not sure exactly why this discussion has "opened my eyes", but damn... you don't deserve to be dismissed this way. However: ArbCom is definitely not the way forward. It's my candid opinion that you would end up digging your own hole deeper; I hope you will not submit yourself to that. I doubt ArbCom would accept the case anyhoe, as I don't think this is something "the community has proven unable to handle". <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	**Thank you for your kind words. And i apologize ahead of time if i said that a little too strongly. i think i'm going to give up. I'll probably wait another year or so if someone believes i deserve to get it appealed again. ] (]) 21:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	*Go ahead. Appeal to ArbCom, they'll decline you for forum shoping in addition to this still being solvable in the community (and since you used Appeal to Jimbo while this thread was going in in violation of ]) your sanction will stick. It took a consensus of editors that saw significant problems with your editing to impose the ban, a consensus of editors that saw that your actions during the discussion of the imposition of the ban as problematic and upheld your topic ban, a mixed bag of consensus here indicates that your actions have yet to demonstrate that your editing will not be less problematic. Please follow the advice that I and others gave above: 1. Keep clear of all drama (including discussing your ban) 2. Come up with a way to show that previous reasons for the ban are no longer relevant (i.e. No disruptive posting/editing, brief (~200 words) and to the point statements outlining your view when you're in dispute with annother editor) 3. Accept responsibility for your actions previously 4. Do not make any accusations about other editors that caused your editing misbehavior. ] (]) 12:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
			====Examples: 331dot====
	::After a good nights sleep and relaxation from the stress, i didn't want to come back. however if you are going to reference other discussions, i suggest you double check and make sure your conclusion is accurate. I originally requested Jimbo Wales to review the previous discussion under beliefs that there is a fundamental flaw on how an oversight lead to the appeal to consensus over whether there was any action warranted. There is indeed a mix crowd but not because the determination of my editing will be less problematic or not. If that was true, clearly this involves WP:ANIME more than the AN community or any Japanese-media related community. Basically, you would've heard them out more.
			{{ping|331dot}} per ], can you please explain why you declined the unblock of good faith editor ]? It seems that they needed guidance, not blocking in the first place, and certainly not a declined unblock with a rather unfriendly, unhelpful message. ] (]) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure what it was that was "unfriendly" about my message. I try to be matter of fact and succinct, perhaps that comes across as unfriendly, but I'm not trying to be. As the blocking admin said when they removed the block, "we don't link to sites that sell things". That's spam. I was looking for some understanding of that point. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, but we've had a massive backlog most of this year and I was trying to keep it down. ] (]) 10:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	::'''The truth of the matter is that there are different priorities with the opposers and supporters.''' The strong supporters note that i am indeed beneficial to the Japanese related articles, and there is proof and witnesses provided. Not only that, but they don't understand what warranted additional sanctions in the first place. That's important. The strong opposers from the previous discussion that originally wanted the topic ban aren't prioritizing that (not an accusation, it's just an objective observation). This isn't about whether i can or can't edit with the Japanese media-related community without disruption (because there's plenty of proof that i can. And there has not been a single counter against these points). But common points within the strong opposers are never connected to the disruption within Japanese media article. The common points is how much annoyed, tired, or at their limit one is during the AN and ANI discussions when it involves me. And the other light opposers are simply opposing out of procedure but if they knew the previous AN discussion was out of procedure, they would possibly be interested in knowing more on why. (and this is said among the supporters)
			*:"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
	::Basically, this key question needs to be answered: '''what new actions have I done at all to merit ''additional'' sanctions regarding Japanese media related articles?''' I didn't break the previous sanctions, only requested it to be narrowed and that was given permission by an administrator (so at least i had some ground to do it). And if this long refusal to answer is based on the intention of making a point regarding "she hasn't learned her lesson", than that is just an even more ] behavior because answering this will help move things along smoothly without calling it drama or anything. In fact, you would be helping an editor see their flaws. If that's not the case, then i'm sure you will be happy to answer that question. Because not only will you be making a stronger point, but you will also be helping another editor improve. ] (]) 19:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
			], 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)
	I think I'm going to opt for arbitration committee and these are the reasons why: '''1)''' I genuinely do not believe this can be solved by the community. Especially when its split between editors in WP:ANIME, editors who know me only through WP:AN and other editors who don't know of the matter. Regardless if i had valid ground to make an argument, its still under the basis that the previous AN and ANI discussion was not done adequately, adequately. And i don't think the administrators or the community will be willing to even consider that idea except for the ones who were part of it. '''2)''' Its far too stressful to see how certain editors have no discretion when it comes to the things they are saying, but find and twist my words. There's a history of dismissing me, ignoring key questions, and over all ]. Nothing i have asked has been answered, and none of my points have been countered. The only thing that has been done so far by the opposers is pick my words apart and refuse to answer.
			::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)
	I genuinely believe what i'm saying will receive more consideration there than here. ] (]) 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			:Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. ] (]) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Have you considered changing the scope of your request? For example, rather than requesting a complete removal of the restriction, requesting for your restriction to be relaxed in respect of say 3 specified articles (and their talk pages) from the topic. I'd be more open to considering support for that type of request as it would mean if you are doing good work, it would be recognised when you later request for a further relaxation after a month or two, but if there were still issues, the scope of any disruption is reduced also. ] (]) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (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)
	::{{u|Ncmvocalist}} Can you give me a reason why i shouldn't ask for it to be removed entirely? Keep in mind, i'm only asking to remove the additional sanctions that have has no basis other than obscure consensus. There will still be sanctions. But right now, the sanctions that are in question are under no basis.
			== Request for closure review ==
	::Why would you not support removing those sanctions? ] (]) 18:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			I would be grateful for a review of the decision to close the discussion at ] in favour of merging the article ] into ]".
	:::This discussion is more or less based on whether there was any grounds in the first place to add additional sanctions on top of the ones already implemented? Not whether i am a good editor. Everyone here knows i'm a good editor. those who don't only know me through WP:AN or ANI. and no one will ever go in AN and ANI for how "good" they are. so how can the opposers know how beneficial i am if they will only see the AN and ANI discussion, and not follow me elsewhere? ] (]) 18:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::You're probably not making any progress with this angle because two editors already reviewed the close, and said it was a reasonable conclusion to come to. ] ] 19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::The conclusion based on an obscure consensus. All I asked for was to reduce the original sanctions. So i ask again...for the sake of of being fair to me. Under what new actions did i do to cause to be banned from Japanese related media? All i asked for was it to be reduced and i was given permission by an administrator to do so. Refusing to answer this question is just ] because i'm going to be banned and not even know what i did to deserve it...Which seems to be against policy. ] (]) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	Like i said, ARBCOM is the only way to go, at this point. NO one is willing to answer this important question. And to me, it will forever look like "your topic banned because there was a consensus for it". I think in ARBCOM, the question will have to be answered, because its no longer about whether consensus controls any action, ARBCOM will be the consensus. SO it will rely more on which one has the more relevant point. ] (]) 21:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			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 .
	===Another arbitrary break===
	At this point, rather than pursue the same path and arguments that happened in the original topic ban discussion, I propose that we hear from a broader base of members from WP:ANIME and WP:VG. In the previous discussion (after looking back) I, perhaps somewhat hastily, proposed the wider anime/VG ban in addition to the GITS ban but ultimately only supported the GITS ban. I'm sure parties to the current discussion will want to wade in here, but rather than seeing the same old names rehash the same arguments, I think fresh eyes need to be brought in. Lucia, I highly recommend ''against'' starting any discussion here, not because I want to muzzle you, but I sincerely want to see what others, apart from the regulars here, have to say. ] (]) 22:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Anytime a discussion involves an edit Lucia dislikes or when she proposes a policy change, there is always an endless debate. While having been out of the loop and skipping most of the discussion, I believe Sergecross and Hasteur analyzed Lucia's behavior quite accurately. However, I think Lucia should receive different sanctions instead of the topic ban, mainly due to her edits on articles no other editors are taking up. My suggestions for sanctions would be: 1) Lucia should not start discussions on policy, MosS, and whatever changes that could be made. 2) Aside from vandalism or something that goes against the MoS, she should consult with an editor who will discuss the edits in her place (or turn her down on her request for a discussion). Her having two consistent consultant editors in WP:Anime and WP:VG would be sufficient. That should settle the ''Lucia Black disruptive thread'' syndrome unless I forgot something. Course, it'd be up to Lucia to accept those terms or not. If this does go to Arbcom, I can only imagine a complete ban for her. Excuse my grammar and derailment of thought here, it has been a long day for me. ] (]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 11:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	* I cannot make this decision for the community, but I will say:
	:* Misplaced Pages is not about ].
	:* An ] is calling for {{Diff2|631585723|help}}.
	: ] (]) 08:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Having a question about sources at an obscure and largely unimportant article is hardly a reason for or against anyone's topic ban. It's truly mind-boggling to think that you thought this would matter in this discussion. ] ] 01:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
			I subsequently with Compassionate727 who declined to revise their decision (entirely within their rights).
	{{archive bottom}}
	{{collapse bottom}}
			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:
	==Application of ]==
	Per the ] and the above consensus, I request an administrator take appropriate action for this edit by {{ping|Diego Moya}}. The user is well aware that the allegations were proven false and that their false nature has been widely covered by the media in covering this incident. -- ] 08:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:If you had read the article's talk page, you would have noticed that I removed the word on the basis of tone, not facticity. Whether the allegations were true or false were not a concern to my edit, the way it's written is. What exactly is the "appropriate administrative action" that you expect to be applied for this content dispute that you didn't discuss? ] (]) 08:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Whether you frame it as a "content dispute" or not, you have specifically edited the article in a way that is contrary to ] . -- ] 08:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Oh, did I? What part of BLP? ] (]) 08:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			* I think the verdict that there was a "rough consensus to merge" is questionable.
	('''Note''' - before you linked the above NEWBLPBAN threat from my talk page I hadn't seen before the above "Proposed Gamergate solution by Hasteur", that apparently is now a "broadly construed, community-endorsed" addition to General Sanctions. I'm digesting through it now to see what it implies). ] (]) 08:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			* The proposal to merge, and subsequent discussion, date from immediately after the article's creation and while the article was in the process of being expanded and improved. The latest vote for merging is from 31 May 2024, and the article has been significantly expanded since then. My view would be that, in light of the changes made to the article since 31 May, it would be reasonable to revisit the matter to consider if any of the arguments in favour of merging have been satisfactorily addressed. In effect, the decision to merge does not give weight to any improvements to the article since May 2024.
	:Response against your BLP violations are fully covered by the existing ], the above consensus regarding gamergate simply further identifies your edit as problematic and as deserving action. -- ] 09:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			* 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.
	::I'll ask it only one more time before I start considering you disruptive: What BLP violation that would merit administrative action are you accusing me of? With links and quoting of the exact relevant part of the policy, please. ] (]) 09:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::That you either fail to understand or are attempting to claim ignorance of how your removal of the sourced and widely covered fact that the allegations were false is incompatible with BLP argues for not only a ban from gamergate but a ban from all articles about living people. -- ] 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::: No case for sanctions here. Whether the "allegations" should be labelled as "false" right away or be shown to have been false only through the following sentences is a legitimate question of editorial judgment and good writing; I can't see any BLP violation here. ] ] 09:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I quite disagree that any "matters of style" allow us to read ] as condoning any formulation that presents the ranting blog post of an ex boyfriend (repeated ad nauseum by internet trolls )to sit as an unadorned "allegation" when all of the reliable sources covering it specifically point out that the "allegations" had zero basis for being made in the first place. "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must '''be written conservatively'''" and "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure '''the overall presentation ''' and section headings are broadly neutral." and "BLPs '''should be written responsibly, cautiously,'''" and "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or '''is accused of committing, a crime''' unless a conviction is secured". Specifically removing the "falsely" descriptor is in contravention of all of those portion of BLP
	. -- ] 19:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I was going to ask it TRPoD's filing of this thread was the basis for a ] on ], but in this instance I won't pursue it further. Doom, in the future please try to keep content disputes to the talk page. ] (]) 09:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{U|TheRedPenOfDoom}} Your action here is a quick way to earn yourself a warning on this topic. I'd hate to have to issue the warning and make your next minor infraction a instant sanctions.... ] (]) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)		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)
	:The ] concerns a central point in the Gamergate issue where gamers "claimed" that named people had engaged in unethical/corrupt behavior. The claim is known to be false—it is unacceptable to use ] to justify slanting the article by describing the claim without explaining that it is known to be false. TRPoD's request is valid. ] (]) 08:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	::It looks like a good edit to me. If readers are too lazy to read the rest of the paragraph, there's nothing we can do about that. And I'm a bit disturbed by the frivolous nature of this complaint. BLP is not a hammer to destroy legitimate edits. ] (]) 15:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
			:'''Overturn and reopen''' Not a single comment was made after the request was posted to ], and, excluding the nom's !vote, there is one proponent of the merge, who cited a concern that appears to have been addressed. There should be further discussion here. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	*The idea that there's a ''tone'' issue in using "false" to refer to claims that have been resoundingly proven false is bizarre. And the talkpage discussion confirms that tone isn't the issue at all, as the user arguing to remove "false" suggests replacing it with "viewed as false by the mainstream press" or similar silly weasely things because we just don't knowwww what's true. I don't think this is blockable in isolation even under the NEWBLPBAN, but has the user tried to make the edit repeatedly or otherwise behaved disruptively with regard to this topic or the BLPs of the writers and devs in question? –] (] &sdot; ]) 16:14, 26 October 2014 (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? ] (]/]) 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 removing creation block at ] ==
	:::This isn't particularly a case for the sanctions, but Diego Moya needs to be ''much'' more careful in making sure their edits accurately represent the sources, especially when BLP claims are involved. This has been a recurring problem for Diego for two years at the similar article ] (cf. ,). In my experience, though, he has generally been willing to work out the problems they introduce.--] ]/] 13:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop|result=Protection removed from ]. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			] was repeatedly recreated in 2008 after a deletion for Copyvio back in 2007 and was thus Creation Blocked. On ] after some discussion, we believe we have found sufficient references for creation of the page. On contacting an available administrator, they indicated that I should ask here. thank you.] (]) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:If an editor wants to create this in good faith then I don't see why not, but I must say that I find this whole "Greek letter" thing extremely childish, so I certainly won't be editing the article. ] (]) 21:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:The article was ]ed for lack of a ] under ], not for persistent copyright violation. I don't think a Senate resolution and a newspaper article from 1942{{snd}}which are the only two sources cited in the WikiProject discussion{{snd}}meet ]. I personally won't un-SALT the page until I'm satisfied that this is actually notable. ] (]/]) 21:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Hello, ],
			:I'm not sure why you were advised to come here to ], the proper place to request a change in protection for a page title is ]. Secondly, you're best bet is to write a draft article and submit it to ], if it is approved, then protection can be lowered so the article can be moved from Draft space to main space. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 22:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{ping|Naraht}} I've undeleted it for you; salting wasn't intended to prevent a soild editor from creating an article in 2024; it was being recreated in 2007-2008 in unuseful ways. Because of Voorts' concern, Liz's idea of drafting it in draft space first, until you have all your ducks in a row, is a good one. But you've been here forever, I defer to however you want to handle it. --] (]) 23:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Yes, I didn't notice that Naraht had been an editor since 2005. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 03:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			== Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to ] ==
	*Not seeing the problem here. The claims are false. The article says they are false. ] doesn't mean that every sentence of the article has to reiterate that they're false. I'd suggest this gets closed before it turns into yet another wall of text re GamerGate. ] (]) 01:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
			REASON: It's directly mentioned in the article thus it's already immediately obvious. And because it uses characters outside the BMP, I can't create it myself so... ] (I ], ]) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	== RFC Problem at ] ==
			:] 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 ==
	There has been a lot of disruptive editing at ]. The RFC process has been disrupted.
			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.
	There is an open Request for Closure as follows:
			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.
	:::Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 25 August 2014) and ] (initiated 31 August 2014)? The opening poster for the first discussion wrote: "Should this article be redirected to ]?" The opening poster for the second discussion wrote: <blockquote>Should the lead sentence of this article call the ancient Macedonian kingdom a "kingdom", without further specification, or a "Greek kingdom"?</blockquote> Please consider the later related discussions ] and ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 09:06, 5 October 2014 (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.
	The two formal RFCs and the two subsequent “Requests for Consensus”, which were not formal RFCs, are not on the article talk page. The formal RFCs are on ]. The “Requests for Consensus” are neither on the talk page nor in the archive. Occasionally an RFC is archived by a bot before it is closed. However, in this case, it appears that ], who had been actively involved in the dispute over the lede, archived all of the relevant discussion:
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMacedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29&diff=630339433&oldid=630338122
	and
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)/Archive_7&diff=630340292&oldid=630339385
			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)
	on 21 October, after Cunard had listed the RFCs for closure. Then Luxure deleted much of the discussion without an edit summary:
			: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?
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AMacedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29%2FArchive_7&diff=630340292&oldid=630339385
			: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)
	That included the deletion of the Requests for Consensus that Cunard had requested be considered by the closer. I have reverted the deletion, so that the entire archive is present and can be reviewed by a closer (although closure may be problematic because of disruption of the RFC process).
			: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)
	The article is subject to ], and sanctions may need to be considered. ] (]) 04:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
	:The entire process was disrupting and disrupted, but, at present, a working (and apparently stable) consensus has emerged. I'm not exactly sure what the function of this section is (Misplaced Pages arcania for sure), but I urge the admins to simply let this (now) sleeping dog lie without trying to "fix" anything. --] (]) 05:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Second Taivo. The reason I archived those disruptive and disrupted 'discussions' was because it took to much space up (2560000 bytes) and it was labourous to scroll through, not because of my supposed hidden agenda. The talk page is no longer a mess of bickering editors. ] (]) 06:17, 24 October 2014 (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)
	== Move "Howrse Online" to Howrse ==
			*: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)
	{{atop|1=] G11'ed by {{u|FreeRangeFrog}}. I SALT'ed preventively to match the existing protection on ]. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 21:23, 27 October 2014 (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)
	The article ] was protected for some reason (I failed to find out the reason for this protection).
			*:::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)
	Somebody created ] instead, this article should be moved to ] as Howrseonline is not the correct name for the page.
			*:{{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)
	] (]) 12:00, 24 October 2014 (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)
	*'''No''' The article was create protected because editors kept re-creating the article without meeting the minimum standards for an article. I have examined the page you want moved there and have initiated a ] on it because there are no independent reliable sources on the article. 3 references to the site for the game itself, and one reference to a "Questions and Answers" site does not make independent reliable sources.] (]) 12:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
			== Self-requested RM relist review ==
	**Yes, I did not want to edit the page while it is using a wrong page name. I added sources now, so you can see, where the correct article might go.
			{{atop|1=It appears there are no objections. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	] (]) 22:40, 24 October 2014 (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}}		{{abot}}
	== ] article on Misplaced Pages ==		== "Early" closes at AfD ==
			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)
	Hi, I would like to share a concern I have with the editors of this article (i.e. ]). I think they think they own this article and it should never have been FA in the first place. The main reason it is not a universal view on the subject but the Baha'i point of view ONLY. If you go thru the talk page archives you will see over and over again the illustration of what I just said. In all honesty, I don't think it benefits the Baha'is themselves since people except more from an encyclopedic article than a regurgitation of the Faith/Cult's point of view on the subject (see their website at www.bahai.org for comparison). The ] article is very different than what you would find on, let's say, the vatican website (& rightly so) and so on. I have the best intentions when I say this, but some narrow minded editors there make any addition which is sourced to a reliable source very difficult if not impossible and it should not be so on Misplaced Pages. I think this article would benefit greatly if other truly uninvolved editors keep an eye on this article and make contributions from time to time. Please note I grew up myself in a Baha'i family but I'm no longer baha'i :) ] (]) 14:06, 24 October 2014 (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. - ] <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 ==
	:I don't have the knowledge of the subject to say whether or not your edit was accurate, but using a term like "cult" to describe them is hardly likely to lead to positive feelings and constructive collaboration. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Note that the phrase was "faith/cult"; this is appealing to people who would use either term, i.e. adopting a neutral point of view. ] (]) 00:04, 25 October 2014 (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)}}
			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.
	:::In the same way that using the phrase "soldier/babykiller" to refer to a member of the military would be NPOV and a good way to start off dispute resolution in good faith? Anyhow, this is offtopic, the correct location to discuss edits to that article is at ]. ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC).
			Top Awards: Academy Awards: Best Actress: her the first actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language performance.
	== To end an iBan ==
			Honorary Award: (1991) for her contributions to world cinema.
	{{atop|1=iBan removed (<small>(Will unlist from ] shortly.)</small> after having served its purpose. Skål! <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 18:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)}}
			Golden Globes:
	And I'm calling it "iBan" cause I think that's cute. {{U|Skyring}} (aka "Pete") and {{U|HiLo48}} became subject to an interaction ban , after a proposal by {{U|DangerousPanda}} (aka "Colonel Bamboo"). The two have decided (see my talk page, "Breach of interaction ban...") that they wish to drop this, and they promise (implicitly, and no doubt they'll make it explicit here) they will get along. There is no real formal way that I can see in ] to make this happen (short of an appeal to Jimbo or an arbitration request), so I figured this is the easiest way to do it: to let the community give its blessing to the undoing of a community-imposed iBan. All in favor please say "aye". Thank you. ] (]) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
			Cecil B. DeMille Award: (1995) for outstanding contributions to the entertainment world.
			Multiple Golden Globe nominations, winning Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical for The Millionairess.
			Cannes Film Festival: Best Actress: Two Women (1961).
			BAFTA: Best Foreign Actress: Two Women (1962).
			Grammy Award: Best Spoken Word Album for Children: Peter and the Wolf (1981), shared with other performers.
			7 Best Actress Awards, including for Two Women and A Special Day.
			Golden Lion Award for Lifetime Achievement (Venice Film Festival): (1998).
			Presidential Medal of Freedom (USA): (2019), awarded for her cultural contributions.
			Career Overview: Number of Films: Over 90 films over a 70-year career.
			] (]) 07:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			: It's logged . Reason: IDHT+disruptive edits. ] (]) 07:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Given that you've been blocked '''six''' times for breaching the topic ban, I would have thought it would have been clear why it exists by now. Not only that, but ''this'' request is also a violation of the topic ban, which you should have been aware of per ]. ] 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I don't think one is allowed to use the AN board, to request a proxy edit to an area one's t-banned from. ] (]) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:No. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::{{yo|Light show}} It is concerning that you do not understand the reasons for your TBAN and that you have once again violated it. ] (]) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			{{Archive bottom}}
			== {{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}} ==
	*'''Aye''', as it would remove the potential of blocks, for either editor. ] (]) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - ] - ] 23:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' --] (]) 00:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support'''. A ban's for when people won't give it a rest; when they agree to give it a rest voluntarily, there's no point to the ban, and it can actively be a problem if they want to collaborate on something. ] (]) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	**<small>Given Pete's infoboxes, I suspect that he's in the USA (he has a "visited 30 of 50 US states" and "Route 66", which presumably outweigh "Guernsey"), so he'll probably be going to bed in the next few hours. Here in the USA, it's still yesterday from HiLo's perspective. ] (]) 00:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</small>
	***<small>Which I was driving a along Route 66 week before last, but I'm home again now. In Canberra. --] (]) 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</small>
	****<small>Hmm, never mind then...] (]) 01:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</small>
	*'''Aye''' - ] (]) 00:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Yea''' --] (]) 00:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' It seems the iban has outlived its usefulness and is starting to get in the way. Strike it down. ] 05:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' but with a caveat that they should be reminded that any future incivility toward each other will result in blocks. If the ban has served its purpose and they want to get along now, good. If not, they should have learned, and can be blocked. ] (]) 16:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	* '''Support''' since none of them has a problem interacting with the other.--] (]) 17:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' with an understanding of a short leash, per Robert McClenon. Interaction bans aren't just to protect the involved parties from each other, they are also intended to protect the community from disruptive spillover. ](]) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	* Agreeing with the above. Given the circumstances, I'd suggest the thread is closed and the restriction is removed without further delay. ] (]) 17:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	*Thank you all, and thank you {{U|Salvidrim!}} for closing. {{U|Skyring}} and {{U|HiLo48}} have been following this anxiously so I don't have to ping them; I wish them both the best. ] (]) 22:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{abot}}
			{{atop|Sulan114 is not eligible to file this petition. --] (]) 23:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)}}
	== Backlog at Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old ==
			Admin targeted a User in October 2023 by making a redirect of users former usernames ] (]) 23:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	Fyi, there is a backlog at ].--] (]) 02:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)		:This user is not eligible to start recall, unless the rules have changed. ] (]) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (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)
			{{abot}}
			==Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.==
	== Backlog breaking transclusions ==
			{{atop|1= is thataway. → - ] <sub>]</sub> 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Belarus ] 06:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Hi,
			Add to wikidata.
	Theres a large backlog at ] thats breaking transclusions of the <nowiki>{{admin_dashboard}}</nowiki> template. Is there anyone willing to take a look at clearing some entries, there are currently 91 reports there. ] (])(]) 10:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:This isn't the first time something like this happened -- I know it's never ''supposed'' to be this backlogged, but that still shouldn't literally break templates. A technical fix might be warranted on {{tl|admin_dashboard}}. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 18:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	*This is quite boring. Where's {{U|Daniel Case}} when you need them? ] (]) 23:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I ''am'' around; I just have concluded a weekend when I had less access to my computer to do this than I thought I would, and I am in the middle also of getting the National Register listing of the ] properly noted in about 20 separate lists. ] (]) 04:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Just as I thought, off improving the encyclopedia instead of... never mind :)--]] 16:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
			Add the Romani article for Sweden:
	== there is a content that violates copyright ==
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Sveko
			Add the Romani article for Cyprus:
	Dear Sir/Madam,
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Chipro ] 06:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.
	we university of Somalia ICT Technitian, the issue that i need to report is the content that creates conflict of two universities 1 is a Somali National University and 2 the other is University of Somalia. this is the link of the link of the content that violates the copyrights of their respected owners. https://en.wikipedia.org/Somali_National_University. this information is a eal information that belong to the Somali National University but the logo that pops up when you search Somali National University from Google Search Engine is for University of Somalia. so the actual link of the logos is here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Somalia-national-university-logo.jpg
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Bosniya_thai_Hercegovina ] 06:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	By Gaanbe
	{{redacted}} <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.
	: Hello. Apparently the image you pointed out ], was included on our ] page in the past (possibly in error), but was removed from there a couple of days ago . If Google is still showing the image on its search page, that may well be based on the previous versions of our article and it just hasn't caught up yet with the correction. For the moment, that's all we can do; if Google is still showing wrong data, that's unfortunately something only Google can solve, not we here on Misplaced Pages. ] ] 10:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana
	:Hi Gaanbe. Thanks for explaining the copyright mixup. The gif was originally taken from the Ranker university website, which attributed its original source to Somalia National University on Freebase . It also licensed the file for reuse via a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license. It seems that Ranker may indeed have mixed up the university's logo with that of another university. Given this, the file has now been removed from the Somali National University page and should be deleted shortly. Best regards, ] (]) 16:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts
	== UAA backlog ==
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland
	In response to the request above, I've handled a bunch of ] situations, but I'm confused by ''Beso de Trueno Mil Novecientos Sesenta y Cinco'' and ''Eternalnameonearthmuhayimanaemmanuel2000''. DeltaQuadBot, which runs WP:UAA, marked both of these usernames purely because they were more than 40 characters in length. Do we normally softblock users just because of long usernames? I know we often block long-and-confusing usernames (e.g. ] wouldn't last long), but ''Beso de Trueno Mil Novecientos Sesenta y Cinco'' and ''Eternal name on earth muhayimana emmanuel2000'' aren't gibberish or otherwise confusing. ] (]) 23:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
	:I remember dealing with it before somewhere, but I don't remember what was done. I think the issue is the confusing length. I thought there was some technical reason it got added to the list. Im on my mobile so I'll take a look Monday or tomorrow to dig through who added it and look at my talk archive. -- ] ] 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	::There used to be code in ] that prevented usernames longer than 40 characters, but this was recently removed as MediaWiki itself already limits usernames to 65 characters. For more details, see ]. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Overly long usernames aren't block-on-sight anymore, but you really might want to talk to the user about them if they decide to stick around. ] (]) 04:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois
	== Appeal of broadly construed three month topic ban ==
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania
	On the 8th of October I was for three months from ] and broadly related pages by the user ] for being "disruptive"; the two justifying diffs were supplied as and . Note that the latter entry appears to have a refactoring of another's comments but that was dealt with and recognized later as a mistake. As evidenced by PBS's template and subsequent text he deemed that my disruption was created by not acknowledging or abiding by a unilateral moratorium on a topical discussion he suggested on ]. Subsequent to the objection of myself and several other involved third parties, as evidenced across talk pages, PBS stated that my three month topic ban was timed to coincide with his concocted moratorium which he deemed was to last until "the New Year".
			https://rmy.wikipedia.org/New_York_(stato) ] 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	I understand how ArbCom rulings work. I understand what ] looks like. I even try to consciously remind myself not to be melodramatic in the face of perceived slights or injustices. Nonetheless, this topic ban is not only undue in it's very inception but the length is arbitrary, unjust, and far outside ] associated with this ArbCom ruling. In fact, the length of this already unjustified topic ban seems to be entirely the product of an arbitrary timeline for a topical discussion PBS unilaterally decided upon instead of any logic based upon my actions here or my overall editing history.
			*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)
	My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors. That PBS would interject his own whims upon a non-] discussion (without any actual main space article changes) and then topic ban a user in good standing for not "abiding by" what was put forward as a "suggested moratorium" is quite outside the normal prerogatives we give to our admins. I would ask for a total rescinding of the topic ban without any prejudice. The ban is unjust and the underlying points of the discussion I was engaged in are perfectly legitimate in light of not only our naming conventions but the application of core policy. ] (]) 05:32, 22 October 2014 (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)
	:: Looks like an odd ban to me. The admin placed a moratorium on name changes for ISIL, which, I think, shouldn't be done. (consensus is what make or breaks change , not by admin fiat ), and the two posts he pointed to were not disruptive, nor incivil. It was normal conversation on the page regarding the name. I'd say that ban needs to be shot down, and the admin needs to be , at the very least, counseled that he cannot rule by fiat the way he's attempting to do on that page. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 11:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	I initially suggested a moratorium when closing the RM on the page (). When that was ignored, I posted a more explicit message () Warning that it was no longer a suggestion and was now a warning by an uninvolved administrator under the ] that apply to that talk page.
	Revisions to ]
	* — Sanctions notification specifically mentioning new sections initiated by GraniteSand since the last RM. Includes the line "If you have any questions about then feel free to ask me."
	* GraniteSand removes Sanctions notification (prof or reading).
	* Topic Ban
	* In response to a posting by GraniteSand on my talk page . This explanation includes the diffs mentioned above by GraniteSand note that the Rabbit line is incidental, one has to look at the bottom of the diff to see its relevance to this topic ban.
	The reason for the ban is fundamentally a case of ]. As I outline in the last bulleted presented I had been quite clear on this issue, but the two edits made by GraniteSand to the article talk page (see initial and ) shows that GraniteSand had either not understood, or was wilfully ignoring my disruptive posting. GraniteSand made no attempt to ask me for clarification either on the talk page (where GraniteSand made the two postings below my "moritorium/disruptive" statement) or on my talk page.
	The length of the moratorium is three months this is customarily recognised as the minimum time between RMs whenthe participants of an RM have discussed the issue thoroughly--and with four RMs in the proceeding 2 months + a host of other sections on the talk page about moves had discussed the issue thoroughly and exhausted the RM process. The length of the topic ban on GraniteSand ties in with the next date that there will most probably be discussion on moving the page so that GraniteSand can participate in that discussion.
	This is not a user account block or a general ban, GraniteSand still has literally millions of other pages to edit during the topic ban. -- ] (]) 11:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	:: The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them. Once again, admins cannot rule by fiat. There's literally only ONE time that anything that even remotely looking like a fiat can be used, and that's WP:OFFICE actions, and that's rarely ever done. So, by admission you:<br><br>
	* Made a suggestion, that no one took you up on
	* Made that suggestion a rule. With nothing else except your status as an admin to back it up
	* Then proceeded to block someone for not being incvil, but rather for violating the rule you added in <br><br>
	That's an bad block and it needs to be reverted. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 13:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	:I don't want to rehash the debate PBS wasn't involved in (until he suspended it) but here's some background on my edits in response to new and more explicit accusations of disruptive editing. ] is predicated on the assumption that the parameters of the discussion and the accompanying justification have mostly not changed, that you're just beating a dead horse. When it comes to naming conventions surrounding the Islamic State, there is an active and robust discussion going on in academic and journalistic circles. In the days leading up to my topic ban there had been an empirical shift in what these independent reliable sources had to say on the topic, as I demonstrated on the discussion page by compiling of entirely new sources on the topic, some less than a day old at the time. Additionally, most naming convention discussions had taken place prior to ISIS changing their name to Islamic State and had therefor largely been a matter of semantics between ISIS and ISIL and not a discussion on whether the new IS was preferred over the previously settled upon ISIL. This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources. That is nothing to be discouraged, much less topic banned for, and is not a case of disruptive behavior, even if some editors didn't like it or disagreed with my interpretation. ] (]) 23:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	::The user refused to consider consensus and was very combative against PBS and other involved users. He seemed to be looking for a fight. ] (]) 05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
	This appeal has now gone unaddressed for long enough that I've had to it. ] (]) 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	::], you say "The sanctions don't say anywhere that a discussion changing or move the page to a different name ( no comment on whether or not the name suggested has merit) is part of them" - no of course they don't, they were never meant to be that specific. They are about behaviour, in this case behaviour in that discussion. ] (]) 11:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::] That sentance (mine ) could have been written better, but yes, you're correct. General Sanctions, as well as Discretionary Sanctions are meant to be specific per ] guidelines. They state: <br><br> '' When general sanctions are employed, they are '''specifically detailed instructions''' by which community consensus or Arbcom motion has empowered administrators to act single-handedly to sanction editors who are not complying with general behavioral or editorial guidelines and policies. ''. <br><br>
	:::In this case, a suggestion was made that was not instituted as General Sanctions of any kind, it was merely a suggestion. A suggestion can be taken or not, with no penalty to refusing. In this case, the suggestion was not taken, and the user was blocked for it. It looks, to me, like the admin overstepped his bounds, and I still believe the ban needs to be reversed. Not to be a dick or anything, but if the sanction had already been in place, and then violated, Granite Sand would have no leg to stand on, but that didn't happen, again, he didn't take a suggestion given to him, that's all. Reverse the topic ban and do what's right. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 16:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Ok, ], take a look at ] and tell me how this sanction is basically any different, and what details instructions are lacking in it that are present one of our most frequently violated sanctions, those on Israeli-Palestine articles. That sanction says "Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process (full text)." The Syrian civil war sanction says (] "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Identical because this sanction is meant to mimic ARBPIA sanctions. I don't know what you mean by "if the sanction had been in place". ] (]) 16:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: Certainly ]. Yes, I agree with you that there are indeed sanctions on this page, and yes they mirror ARBPIA, but none of those restrictions show anything about starting a discussion, they state the article is under 1RR except for obvious vandalism. Yes, Granite sand was warned about those same sanctions however, please note , again that those sanctions '''do not''' include starting new discussions about changing the name. That was a suggestion made by the blocking admin , and note this was a '''suggestion''' not a sanction, just a suggestion that was in no way covered by discretionary sanctions at all. After this suggestion was made, it was not accepted ( note the discussions below concerning changing the name ).
	Now, we all can make suggestions, if they're not accepted, it's pretty well known that it's poor form to try to force that change through. Or said another way, if I had been the one to post the suggestion "Hey let's not talk about renaming ISIL again until next year" and no one took me up on it, and I decided to take action by deleting anything that mentioned such a rename and pointed back to that suggestion, I'd be in some hot water, and it would be well deserved. That's just what this admin did. His suggestion wasn't taken, consensus went against him, so he decided to try to force it through as "Discretionary Sanctions", but note, that Discretionary sanctions don't cover this, it's not a blank check for the admin to push his way through and ignore consensus, which is just what he did.
	Unban him, it's just that simple. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC) <sub> yeah, I know, '''TL/DR''', sorry about that ! <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC) </sub>
	] - Sorry, you're still confused. Sanctions and 1RR are separate things. The sanctions have no specific restrictions, they are about behavior:"if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". Behavior can be in article space, on the article's talk page, or in fact elsewhere if it concerns the subject covered by the sanction. The fact that it involved a move discussion is immaterial. To repeat myself, they cover any discussion relevant to the sanctions. ] (]) 21:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	*I think the sanctions are pretty clear: "Sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the scope of these sanctions, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; '''or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project'''. ] — ] 02:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	To reiterate, my appeal has nothing to do with the scope of an uninvolved administrator's prerogative in using discretionary sanctions in the instance of what is perceived as disruptive behavior. My appeal is based on the facts and circumstances of ] judgment in invoking that prerogative in this particular instance. I maintain that my behavior was not disruptive, that PBS lacked the consensus he asserted here, that his behavior was unwise and unilateral, that the scope of my editing doesn't warrant a ''topical'' ban, and that the term of my topic ban is far outside the normal parameters of such bans. I'm disturbed that no administrator has yet taken this up. I appreciate ] and ] discussions on the finer points of ArbCom rulings but they're not relevant to my appeal. Also, RGlouceseter is rather involved in the subject at hand. ] (]) 17:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping|GraniteSand}} Well, I what I meant by the bolding of that piece of text was that you should focus your argument on whether PBS's use of these measures was "reasonably necessary". He doesn't need "consensus", because community sanctions give him power as an uninvolved administrator to unilaterally take "any measures reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". The question here is not whether PBS had the authority to do what he did, but whether it was "reasonable". You'll have a much more effective argument if you take-up that angle. Why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to issue the moratorium? Following that, why do you think it was "unreasonable" for him to impose a three month topic ban? Answer these two questions, and you'll be in better shape. ] — ] 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Not consensus on the application of the topic ban but an assertion that there was a universal agreement other than myself on his "moratorium on discussion", which was not the case. I thought he made the assertion here but, upon review, he did not. I'll try to find the diff but the larger issue of my appeal doesn't hinge on the assertion of consensus for the moratorium because it clearly doesn't exist anyway, as has already been demonstrated. Nobody asked for it and when he "suggested it" nobody took him up on it. I think that I've already made clear that my edits were not disruptive and that others on the article talk page were not only involved in discussing my position in a constructive manner but then went on to say that they found PBS's unsolicited moratorium unnecessary and my topic ban excessive and inappropriate. It would appear that instead of PBS issuing a topic ban to prevent the disruption of the project he issued a moratorium on discussion and then banned me simply because he had decided what he thought was the right answer to the topic at hand and was tired of seeing it come up, regardless of changes in the form and content of reliable sources on the subject. I would also think that my appeal inherently infers PBS demonstrated unreasonable behavior. Bringing up ''brand new'' reliable sources making assertions about a dynamic topic of frequent and substantive discussion and talking about how our policies relate to what those sources say is not disruptive. Then, aside from the application of the ban, the length is an unreasonable outlier all on its own. The other topical bans issued under this set of sanctions last for days not months. His topic ban lasts for the length of his unsolicited and ill-formed moratorium when topical bans should be reflective of the scope and severity of the "disruptive" behavior. Regardless, there should have been a substantive response made to this appeal by uninvovled admins some time ago. I know there is a reasonable hesitancy to overturn other admins decisions but this seems rather clear cut to me. After all, I know most admins aren't afraid of saying "no" if they truly feel that's the right answer. ] (]) 19:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I suppose the question is, then, do you plan to abide by the moratorium in the event that your topic ban is lifted? Or, on the other hand, do you plan to challenge the moratorium as well? ] — ] 20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::I'm of the opinion that the moratorium itself is unreasonable, which is why I asked for this decision to be overturned "without prejudice". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear; it's rather wikilawyer-ish and an old bad habit of mine. Were the topic to be totally stale, which is to say the subject wasn't fluid and the body of reliable sources not changing, then community consensus alone would be enough to simply refer new queries to previous discussions, making a moratorium superfluous. The reality, though, is the opposite, which makes the moratorium unwise and stifling to the nature of the project. How can we disallow the discussion of a relevant topic in a fast changing subject? It's antithetical to what we do here. Now, of course, if my appeal is overturned and the unilateral moratorium not then I won't disregard it, that would be belligerent and unwise. The moratorium should be overturned, though, and I'll pursue it as an independent topic of discussion, here or elsewhere. ] (]) 20:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::::Personally, I think it is best to do the following. Firstly, separate the matter of your topic ban and the moratorium. Secondly, agree to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires in return for the lifting of the topic ban. Thirdly, if you'd still like to continue your suit to appeal the moratorium, open a new thread at this noticeboard after the topic ban has been lifted. I believe that this is the best way forward. If you are willing to follow this route, I will '''support''' lifting topic ban. This thread here should only deal with the matter of your topic ban. ] — ] 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{outdent}}I think that's entirely reasonable. ] (]) 20:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping|PBS}} – As you were the sanctioning administrator, would you consider lifting the topic ban in line with the procedure I outlined above? I think this is a good compromise. First of all, it will confirm whether the moratorium is justified in a new thread, and secondly, it will allow for that moratorium to be abided by in the mean-time. It strikes me as being better to try and resolve these disputes, rather than to let them languish, and I do believe that GraniteSand has no particular ill-intent that is so worthy of a three month topic ban. ] — ] 22:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{collapse top| A list of 9 sections on the talk page about the page name over the month before the moratorium}}
	:::*"New name" started 21 August, Panam2014, last comment 1 September 2014 (closed 3 October)
	:::*"Move request - 6 September ", Kingsindian closed 30 September
	:::*"Requested move 17 September", Gazkthul closed 3 October 2014
	:::*"Alternative name" 20 September, Panam2014, last comment 1 October 2014
	:::*"How much longer are we going to avoid calling the Islamic State the Islamic State?", 30 September, GraniteSand, last comment 3 October 2014
	:::*"English language reliable sources using"Islamic State" since declaration of name change", 1 October 2014 GraniteSand, last comment 2 October 2014
	:::*'ISIL/ISIS/"Islamic State"' 2 October 2014, Gregkaye, last comment 3 October 2014
	:::*"A good reason not to use Islamic State", 2 October 2014, Legacypac , last comment 7 October 2014
	:::*"An RM to ISIS?" 7 October 2014, Gregkaye
	{{collapse bottom}}
	:::All those sections were on the talk page at the time I imposed the moratorium. It has long been accepted practice for RM processes to draw a line under move discussions, for a time between discussions, to stop endless discussion.
	:::GraniteSand has written in this section:
	:::#"My basic point remains unchanged, that the name of the Islamic State is dynamic and debatable and should be discussed by interested editors."
	:::#"This is all to say that I was bringing new sources to an active topic and advocating my interpretation of those sources"
	:::#"The moratorium should be overturned, though, and I'll pursue it as an independent topic of discussion, here or elsewhere".
	:::This is a continuation of the behaviour for which GraniteSand's topic ban was imposed.
	:::It is quite common administrators who close RMs to put time limits on when the next one can be held, so my actions were not unusual; and limits on RMs can also be found applied by administrators under various sanctions (eg ]).
	:::RGloucester you write "I think this is a good compromise" is a rhetoric construct, as it implies that there is a compromise to he had and that this is a good one (it also implies that you are a neutral actor -- you are not "No. Please stop. There is no need to be constantly debating the title. Leave it well alone. We've had enough move requests already." written by you directly before my moratorium statement ). It is also no compromise at all because it allows GraniteSand to fill the talk page with debates about the moratorium and "that it should be overturned because..." Something GraniteSand has made clear (s)he will do in this section.
	:::Instead here is an alternative proposal: that there will be an RfC with a simple statement "It is proposed the moratorium of page moves should be lifted immediately" (similar to ] -- the difference being that was proposing to create one this is to lift it); and if there is a consensus that the moratorium should be lifted the topic ban on GraniteSand will also end, otherwise the topic ban stays in place until the moratorium ends. -- ] (]) 12:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::PBS, there is no reason to attack me. You're well aware that I support the moratorium, as evidenced by comments. I never said otherwise. However, I do not support the topic ban. I believe these matters are separate. GraniteSand has agreed to abide by the moratorium until it is overturned or expires. That means he won't be "filling the talk page with debates about the moratorium", because, as I said, he would pursue an overturn of the moratorium in a new thread here at ], as is appropriate for review of administrative actions. The idea that his topic ban will only end if the moratorium ends is draconian, to say the least. ] — ] 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::: So, by your post above, 6 users asked for a move discussion. You state that this occured after you suggested that no move occur until next year. It appears consensus was against you. I understand you're aggravated, however, by calling your suggestion and discretionary sanction, you've given the appearance of ignoring consensus and forcing your will in. Therefore, in a show of good will, I suggest you drop the ban. As my contribution history shows, I haven't posted on that page at all, and have no stake in whatever name consensus decides, so it's not like I have a side I'm on here (as far as naming goes ). <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em blue">]] </span> 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	PBS has seemed to have gone through a daily edit cycle without responding to either ] or ]. While I very much appreciate the input of admins and editors so far, an entire week has gone by and no uninvoloved admin has rendered a judgement or opinion here. This is ridiculous. Therefor I'm going to take the rather unorthodox step of reaching out and requesting the input of three admins whose opinions and judgement I greatly respect, even though I've often found myself in disagreement with them at various points. These editors are {{ping|DGG}}, {{ping|Acalamari}} and {{ping|BrownHairedGirl}}. This could very much be viewed as canvassing but all three are of independent mind and I don't expect any particular result. At this point any result would be adequate, even if it's "no". I just want some resolution here so I can move on to the next step, one way or another. ] (]) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:I did not respond to KoshVorlon because the time stamps on my post do not support the assertion. I did not respond to RGloucester because I think that I have already answered the points RGloucester raised. I have started an RfC on the Moratorium on the talk page of the article (See ]) -- ] (]) 14:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	*I was asked for an opinion. As I see it. the disruption is the continued focus on the pagename of the article. Such repeated discussions are in my opinion not conducive to editing articles, which is what an encyclopedia should be doing. I support unblock if he is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one. (If on is brought by someone else in good faith, I think one brief comment there would be allowable, but I very strongly advise that nobody open such a RfC--it is counterproductive to the concept of the moratorium.) I think the moratorium was a very good idea. I would in fact be very much in favor of a considerably longer one, except that the actual situation in the RW is itself unstable. ''']''' (]) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping|DGG}}, as I said before, I'll abide by the moratorium until it is lifted. It seems like PBS has decided to start an RfC. I'm assuming that nobody has a problem with me participating there in a concise manner. As far as lifting my topic ban, should another uninvoled editor agree in addition to you would you be comfortable making an affirmative action there? I know that both you can RGloucester have made conditional statements of support there but RGloucester is involved and I wouldn't feel good about it without the input of one more admin. ] (]) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::You cannot participate in the RfC whilst topic-banned. That would lead to a block. ] — ] 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Which is why, after two admins conditionally supported the lifting of my ban, I suspect {{ping|PBS}} has put the cart before the horse and stared the RfC now. I would guess he sees the potential for my topic ban being lifted so he's trying to have this done without my participation. Unless I'm wrong, and he, as the blocking admin, wouldn't mind my participation there. ] (]) 23:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::this is of course an absurd situation: this sort of circular dilemma is a violation of one of our basic principles, NOT BURO. I am not familiar with the working of arb enforcement & how to word things there. Will someone who is please enter the appropriate modification there. Enough is enough. (I can say from everything I've seen here that I will very strongly support continuing the moratorium.) ''']''' (]) 04:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I initiated the RfC on the moratorium, to counter the the argument presented here that is is an arbitrary action with no support. I would prefer to unilaterally lift the sanctions on ], but GraniteSand you have to give a clear indication that you will not only follow DGG's requirement " is willing to accept not discussing renaming of this article anywhere on WP until the end of the moratorium, and not bringing an RfC on the matter or encouraging one." but in addition agree not to discuss the Moratorium anywhere on WP (or participate in the current RfC on the Moratorium -- If you wish to have your opposition to the moratorium noted in the Open RfC I will do that for you). -- ] (]) 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::{{{ping|PBS}} The alternative option, PBS, is to change the topic ban. You can very easily narrow it to "discussing changes to the title of the ISIL article for xxxxx", as opposed banning him from ISIL all together. ] — ] 12:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Lifting my topic ban while insisting that I not participate in the only subject I was an active in the topic isn't lifting the topic ban at all. You've started an RfC on your unsolicited moratorium, poorly advertised it and then insisted that my dissenting voice not be allowed to participate in it, all to prove its broad support. That's ridiculous. Your RfC needs not just the dissenting voices that initially objected to it but a wider consensus from outside the article page which has become somewhat of an echo chamber on the issue between two or three editors. I fully agree to RGloucester's conditions and but you've already nullified DGG's terms by starting an RfC. ] (]) 23:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Where else would you like the RfC advertised? -- ] (]) 14:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	==Blanking of archived AfD discussion as "defamatory"==
	I have twice restored the content of ] here ] and ] following blanking of the whole article by ] with the edit summary '' (removed derogatory comments put in this page about this bio showing in search engine, please do not put it back)''. A previous reversion by an IP ] and another different IP ] suggests a campaign to remove this archived discussion. I am danger of 3RR if I restore the content. Perhaps the important issue is whether potentially damaging assertions made in an AfD should be referenced as, for non-admins such as me, we cannot see the content deleted at AfD which may well have been supported by appropriate references. At present I have simply reverted on the principle that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Any guidance or suggestions appreciated. <span style="background-color:lightblue">'''''&nbsp;]&nbsp;'''''</span><span style="background-color:lightblue">&nbsp;<sup>''] Talk ''</sup>&nbsp;</span> 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	:In response to reasonable requests, we will generally blank AfDs or other process pages as a courtesy, with the recognition and understanding that the content of the page is still readily available in the page's history; see ]. Of course, I would be curious about which search engines are returning AfD discussions&mdash;AfDs are flagged to ''not'' be indexed (]), and neither Google nor the default Misplaced Pages search box will return this page when searching on the individual's name. ](]) 17:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	:I have courtesy blanked and added {{tlx|xfd-privacy}} to the page. There is no reason it has to be visible. ]&nbsp;] 17:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Given TenOfAllTrades valid point and that the AfD contained nothing defamatory beyond the subject not having received sufficient coverage for Misplaced Pages's inclusion guidelines, I don't know why this should be hidden. ] (]) 17:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::What does it hurt to have it blanked? I do not see anything negative that will occur if a 4 year old AFD is blanked. ]&nbsp;] 17:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	::: Sam, keep in mind that our reaction to a description like "Non-notable businessman and one-time court litigant" can be very different from that of the subject who is not acclimated to wiki-jargon. So if the suject prefers that the page be "]", I think we should err towards making that largely cosmetic change. ] (]) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Er, I'm not sure which point of mine you're agreeing with. I don't see why we need to maintain a permanent monument declaring a living person to be "non-notable" &ndash; particularly if it is true &ndash; especially if that person is made uncomfortable by it. (I did mention that his comment about search engines seemed odd, but I will now note explicitly that there are certainly some less-popular search engines which ignore the no-index request.) ](]) 18:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Fair point regarding terminology, I wasn't necessarily arguing that all AfD pages should always be visible, I just didn't deem it overwhelmingly necessary to hide this content. I don't really have any qualms now that it's hidden. ] (]) 18:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{unindent}}I nbelieve that we should never blank AFD discussions, unless they're about BLPs and the persojn in question asks for the blsanking. That having ben said, there is no need to revert such blanking, provided that the AFD has been closed and is not currently being discussed elsewhere (such as DRV) - anyone who wants can still look back at the last non-blanked version and se what it said. ] ] 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
	:I do agree with ] here, while the language is relatively mild, if it's turning up in search engine results it could be upsetting or prejudicial to this person's business interests. Blanking is cheap, and it's easy enough for anyone to access the discussion through the "History" link if they really want it badly. ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC).
	I think that, in general, closed and archived discussions should be left as they are and not edited further. ] <sub>]</sub> 01:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	I don't think it matters very much one way or the other, but I find myself curious as to why folks think a rude search engine that ignores robots.txt wouldn't just crawl the "View History" link on the page into revisions and then crawl the version before blanking? <small>]</small> 02:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	:My experience with tinkering with a few crawlers is that various history pages, when they're not being linked to directly, are too "deep" for crawlers to reach consistently. Some of the more advanced ones will also get a bit suspicious that the contents of many revision pages are largely identical. Lastly, some crawlers such as Google dislike URLs that contain querystrings, which our history pages use. In other words, most of them probably could, but they don't. ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC).
	*I agree entirely with Abecedare & Ten - blanking on request (or accepting blanking by third parties) is entirely reasonable. AFD discussions can read very harshly to the subject or anyone not familiar with our jargon and insisting they're searchable in the face of third-party concerns is a bit harsh. It's not as though the discussions become inaccessible! ] (]) 20:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I agree also. We deliberately have a relative more open policy in discussions than in articles because we need some way to evaluate the suitability for a WP article and that sometimes does include negative or unfortunate comments. it's unfair to leave them so very visible. ''']''' (]) 20:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	:: This is one of the more common requests via OTRS. For living individuals, having a page on the internet that declares you are "not notable" is obviously unpleasant. It's all in the history, the bar to courtesy blanking AfD debates is and should be low. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	*We've always done courtesy blanking with good cause and a reasonable request. We are pretty lax on what qualifies, for good reason, as blanking an AFD really doesn't cost anything in usability and having that info public can be embarrassing to real world people. If someone blanks one and you think it shouldn't be blanked, you can always drop it by WP:AN for review, before reverting. ] - ] 00:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	*We should always be free with courtesy blankings of stuff that affects real people, and of course that applies to AfD's. It doesn't have to be "defamatory" content, it's quite enough that it's disagreeable for an actual person to have it immortalized on the Internet. ] &#124; ] 01:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC).
	== Revoke sanctions pertaining to Singaporean election ==
	were established in an AN/I thread in 2011. They are largely irrelevant now, and should be revoked. The text of them is as follows: "], ], ], ] and ] are put under 1RR and semi-protected". The 2011 Singapore election article specified by the sanctions has barely been edited this year, and I can't find any record of enforcement. There is no reason to keep these sanctions around. ] — ] 12:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' unless there's something I'm missing. Restrictions like these on then-current or future events should probably normally be drafted to expire within a year of the event's conclusion unless there's some compelling reason to default to maintaining them. —/]/<sup><small>]</small></sup>/<sub><small>]</small></sub>/ 16:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Suspend, but not revoke''' Per ], the latest this subject area could turn over is 2017 (but probably sooner). I'd prefer to see the sanctions suspended with a blanket notice to all parties that if misbehavior restarts that the sanctions will come back into force with the will of a single administrator. The fact that General sanctions had to be enacted to fix conduct behavir is indicative of a serious problem in the subject space. ] (]) 18:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::I imagine new sanctions would have to be established for such a thing. As it stands, most of these articles haven't really even been edited this year. I'm not aware of any procedure for "suspending" sanctions. The article you mention is not named in the sanctions decision. ] — ] 18:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	*'''Remove'''. I think that's what "support" means. The "these general sanctions" link goes to ], a huge page all about someone who's since been indefinitely blocked; it looks like she was a huge part of the problem. The situation cannot be the same next time around: if she's back, we'll revert and block the sock(s), and if others are being equally disruptive, we should consider the situation anew, and if neither one, then sanctions won't be warranted. We can't predict it before the election situation ramps up, so we shouldn't retain sanctions. ] (]) 21:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Yes, that's the page that is presently linked at ]. It seems no formal page for the sanctions was ever drawn-up. As far as I can tell, they've never been enforced either. There certainly isn't any record of it. ] — ] 22:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{Reply to|RGloucester}} Here's the linkage: ] -> Infobox -> (Next Link). It seems reasonable to leave these sanctions in place as there is rumbling that the next elections are going to be called in the next year (see the text of the article I pointed at). If no disruption happens then we can look at revoking the sanctions, but I'm hesitant to revoke them entirely (and require an entire new set of disruption/GS discussion) to re-institute the sanctions if it becomes a problem. ] (]) 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::As these sanctions were not "broadly construed", but limited to certain articles, you'd still have to start a new discussion to get them to apply to that article. Regardless, this strikes me as ]. They are not being used, and have never been used. If they are needed in the future, they should be created in the future. ] — ] 22:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	:'''Support'''. If there are problems during the next election, we can re-instate the sanctions. ] ] 12:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
	:'''Support''' removal of sanctions. Elections are contentious times of the year. It may be worthwhile having these sorts of sanctions automatically come into force whenever an election is held. A simple notification on AN/ANI that such sanctions are being enacted would suffice I believe. ] (]) 03:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	== Bot issues ==
	It seems to be a bot been editing while logged out or some technical issue. ]. I will post this up on VPT as well. ]] 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:{{comment}} Possibly ClueBot 3 according to recent contributions to own user page. --]] 03:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Discussion active on ], not blocking at this time. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Okay, thanks Xaosflux. ]] 04:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Blocked, see notice at the bottom of this board, and more details at ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{done}} Issue resolved, block cleared. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Question for clarification ==
	] I am told that «Last month was the second time there have been zero admins selected (the first was last September) and it looks like this month will be the third time. Additionally the project is losing admins at a rate much faster than can be replaced and the workload that remains is both increasing and causing the existing admins to become more stressed and more abusive to regular editors.»
	What areas would do we need more help with now? And can this problem please — if not already — have a space dedicated to documenting it, such as at ]?
	After some more time, I figured out that this contributor (the one I'm quoting above) is blocked. Are these claims accurate? I had initially assumed yes. —] (]) 07:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	: The first claim looks correct according to ]. --] (]) 08:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	: It's true that we are short of admins, there are currently 1386 admins, of which 458 have performed an admin action during the month of October. Only 227 admins have performed 10 or more admin actions in the last month. The vast majority of the admin tool use is performed by a small group. Please see . Areas where we are currently chronically short of admins include ], ], ], ], ] (on weekends), and image deletions of all kinds. ] recently got so backlogged that the admin dashboard broke from exceeding the transclusion limit. I'm sure there's more problem areas that I haven't thought of. We need more admins, and we need more admins actively using the tools. -- ] (]) 14:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	::] is also a big problem - we havediscussions from early August still open there, and the lkist of pages with open discussions tends to get longer and longer. ] ] 05:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Except that those who'd want the tools can't have them and we often fail RFA candidates on tiny things often irrelevant to having the tools. The issue isn't that we lack people wanting to be admins but that the system we use hasn't adapted to how the wiki itself has changed, it's still very much an old admin's club, often a gruelling selection process and decided by a select few and on irrelevant information. ] (]) 07:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	== WP:SPI backlog ==		== 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)
	Hello admins! Posting here in an attempt to draw attention to the backlog currently at ]. There seem to have been a wave of reports over the last few days, and there are some now having sat open for nearly a month (one going back as far as September 4). Many just need archiving. I know you probably get notifications about this anyway but if any of you are interested, please take a look. ] (]) 20:11, 29 October 2014 (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)
	== This is a toxic editor ==
			:::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)
	{{atop|Not sure we need it all, but in any case ANI is sufficient.--] (]) 22:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)}}
			::: doesn't help much, but consider looking at , you might find something WP-good there. ] (]) 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	I read James Well's speech recently in London in Wikimania and he stressed "Toxic editors" that they may as well leave and make Misplaced Pages a harmonious medium to work with. But look at the talks generated by this editor- http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ChamithN I would suggest that he has to leave wikipedia and find a way to vent his anger- not here. He is unconstructive, immature, unreceptive and acts on impulse because he is busy..? that's the right answer if it is..but why ask for a talk when he cannot talk... he is stupidly stupid.. and has to immediately be penalized and his editing be extremely limited and be phased out in the wikipedia world. Thanks. ] (]) 21:48, 29 October 2014 (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)
	# You need to notify editors when you bring them up here or at ANI.
			:::::{{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)
	# You need to give specific links to specific comments made by the editor, and also show that you've made any sort of effort to solve your problem yourself.
			::::::And focus on the ones that show ]. ] (]) 09:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	# In theory, this sort of request is more appropriate for ]. I say "in theory" because I've interacted with this editor before, and I don't believe they're anywhere near to indefinite block/ban level. ] ] 21:55, 29 October 2014 (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}}		{{abot}}
			== Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST ==
	== Notification of a TFA nomination ==
			{{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)
	In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: '']'' has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at ]. Thank you. &mdash; ''']''' (]) 22:11, 29 October 2014 (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)
	== Mass-deletion script ==
			:::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)
	{{atop|Problem fixed by ]. ] (])(]) 14:00, 1 November 2014 (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)
	Does anyone have a script to mass-delete pages? I'd like to have the following pages U1-speedied, but I don't feel like loading 94 pages, hitting the "delete" tab 94 times, picking U1 94 times, and clicking "delete" 94 times.
	{{collapse top}}
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	{{collapse bottom}}
	Of course, if no script is available, I'm willing to do it of course; no need for someone else to do it manually. Thanks! ] (]) 23:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	:{{done}} (I just used twinkle.) <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> ] • ]</span> 23:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== Mass rollbacking my bot ==
	== Please fix archiving at "Talk:2014 Hong Kong protests" ==
			{{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)}}
	{{atop|{{resolved}} by ] ] (])(]) 14:01, 1 November 2014 (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)
	Please delete the erroneous archive pages for ]. I messed up, and started the counter at 3 instead of 1, which screwed up {{tl|archivebox}}, etc. --] (]) 02:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
			:Do you want the two pages it created deleted? ] (]) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I've renumbered them. Please see . ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 05:04, 30 October 2014 (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)
	::All fixed. Thanks for your help, ]! ''']'''<font color="green">]</font> 05:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
			:::{{done}}! ] (]) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	{{abot}}		{{abot}}
			== Question about ] ==
	== Unusual user page deletion ==
			{{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)
	] nominated his/her pages for ], but it's not necessary to go to discussion... it's not an article in progress, but just a few words, so I applied the ] template, because it seemed to be the next best choice. If this isn't the right approach, what is? Thanks!
			: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}}
			== ] ==
	Thanks!--] (]) 03:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
			{{Archive top|This discussion has been closed as '''keep''' per ]. <small>(])</small> ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 05:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)|Done}}
	:You should have used {{tl|db-user}}. ] ] 03:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
			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==
	::Thanks! When I tried to use db-user, I got an error, since I'm not the user. But, I did post that on the user's page. Thanks so much for taking care of the deletion!--] (]) 03:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	:::What kind of error was produced? The template itself doesn't object on such grounds, which is good because legitimate alternate accounts are allowed to mark their main accounts' pages for deletion. ] (]) 12:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::I think it's just a warning, not an error, telling the deleting admin to double-check to make sure that someone isn't trying to get someone else's page deleted maliciously. --] 13:00, 30 October 2014 (]]])
			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?
	::::I see. I was wrong about "the template itself doesn't object"; there's a big red warning the width of the template. This warning was ; it's not a longstanding component of the design. ] (]) 13:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::This warnong is designed to prevent U1-taggiong vandalism. However, if there is clearly a request by the user to delete it, I doubt any admin would decline the request. Whenm in doubt, leave a mention of the location of the request in the edit summary when tagging, as an admin should look there before declining the deletion. ] ] 06:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
			Anyone have a clue what happened here and why the removal of content would not be visible in this edit? Thanks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			: (Non-admin comment) the issue might be to do with the error message in this section:
	== Watchlist notice request ==
			::::: <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==
	Hi! I'd like to request a watchlist notice for this weekend, to run from Friday 31st October, 11:00 UTC (not before) until Sunday 2nd November, with the proposed text,
			{{atop|Matter handled. ] (]) 14:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			User Mellk has been repeatedly removing well-sourced information from the ] article. The removed content includes cited sources indicating possible violations of international laws by Mikhail Prokhorov. It appears that User Mellk may be attempting to conceal this information by removing it from the article.
			Proposed Action:
	:'''This weekend, help find 10,000 maps in scans from 13,000 books. See ].'''
			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)
	Ideally, the message would look similar to the current ]s, and run immediately below them.
			{{abot}}
			== Dubai chocolate ==
	More information about the campaign can be found in this ] for the Signpost this week.
			{{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.
	I first suggested this at ], but that usually runs more tightly-focussed meetup notices, so felt a wider community view was needed as to whether this would be appropriate. I started a ] to try to gauge opinion, but got no comments. So, since watchlist notices need an admin to put in place, I thought I should bring it here.
			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 ].
	Wider participation will be make-or-break for whether this effort works. Is the notice above something that people feel would be appropriate to find above their watchlists? ] (]) 17:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:What do you mean — are you asking that we add your message to ]? ] (]) 21:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping|Nyttend}} Yes -- or authorise ] to add it with worldwide visibility. (One of the Geonotice maintainers will be at the event in London tomorrow). But basically I just wanted a view from a straw poll of administrators as to whether this would be appropriate.
	::(My apologies if it is in the wrong place, and it should have been at ], but I have left a note on the talk page there of this discussion). ] (]) 23:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::], what (if anything) did you learn in London today? I held off responding because of that. Since he's responded to a lot of requests ], I was going to ask Andrew Gray for help, but then I saw that about something. Would you summarise his concerns, if it be appropriate to mention them in a public forum? ] (]) 23:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{ping|Nyttend}} Yes, I talked to {{ping|Andrew Gray}} for a couple of minutes about this (in amongst a great day, with some good talks, lots of maps tagged, and some very fine 'GingerDead men'). He says he's had pushback before when he's posted messages that people feel are off-wiki activities, or aren't related to core discussions happening on wiki. Also, that people haven't exactly been rushing to comment, either one way or the other, neither in the previous thread at VP/Misc nor here. So in view of that he was going to hold off, and wasn't prepared to put up a worldwide geonotice.
	::::I think that's a pity. There's currently getting any sort of geonotice at all; and work has been continuing -- there's ], though that seems to be down entirely to one French editor, one Australian, and one editor with insomnia from today's tagathon. So I can only wonder how much more we could be achieving with more of a global push. People may see the ] and have a look, but a watchlist message would surely attract more, even if only to have a look around to see ]. -- ] (]) 07:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
			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)
	== ] ==
			{{abot}}
	This page could use more administrator eyes. ] are in force there, but tendentious editing seems to be continuing at a rapid rate. ] — ] 20:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
			== Potential paid article writing (or just very bad form) by @] ==
	== Need an administrator to check a deleted article ==
			{{atop
	There is a new article ] and with it a oddly named disambiguation page ]. I tried to rename the disamb page as ], but it was protected from creation by a now-retired administrator. Now I suspect that Christopher Drew Ingle is a re-creation of the deleted page that led to protection. I could use an administrator to check this and help clean it up. Please ping me when replying. ] (]) 04:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
			| result = Nothing left to do here. ] (]) 00:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	: They are unrelated, ]. Previous deletions at ] have been articles about a wrestler, and about a school principal, not a musician. <font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 04:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
			}}
	:: Could you please rename the odd disambiguation page to that title? There are two bona-fide articles for Christopher Drew, this musician and an American football player. ] (]) 04:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::: (ec) It looks like Ingle styles himself as "Christofer Drew" according to the article about the band, so maybe that's where the article should live. I have unprotected ] so that you can set things up as you see fit. -- ] (]) 04:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	: I've moved ] to ], which appears to be the appropriate title. <font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 04:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
			I have no evidence for paid article writing, but otherwise this is very bad form. A quick look at @]'s edit history is they almost always start with a sandbox article before moving to draft and then moving into mainspace, completely bypassing the ] process. And they seem to do so for only high profile ]s like with ], ], ], and ]. I took a look at Ivan Yuen's page and it read like a resume, both in the "glowing positive review" sense and in the "meaningless vague garbage" sense. I trimmed almost everything from it before changing my !vote to Delete on the AfD. A brief skim of ] notes the same problem, and the references listed almost exclusively describe ], who is her considerably more famous husband. ] (]) 22:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Massive copyright violations ==
			:Nevermind. Checkuser got to them first. You can archive this now ] (]) 22:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	After reviewing the contributions of {{User|Patrick O'Canada}}, they have uploaded many image files (e.g. ) sourced from http://stuffled.com that constitute copyright infringement, which need to be deleted. I have nominated many files for speedy deletion using Twinkle (see my ]) which resulted in their deletion, but this is going to take a significant amount of time and days using this method due to the high volume of problematic files.
			{{abot}}
			== PayPal Honey edit warring ==
	Per the bottom of stuffled.com pages: "Stuffled does not claim copyright or ownership of the submissions, which remain the sole property of the original artist. All trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective owners." Per Misplaced Pages's ], part of Misplaced Pages's ] page, "Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf"
			{{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)
	Perhaps some administrators can review this user's contributions and delete image files that are sourced from Stuffled.com on the spot, without having other users go through the speedy deletion nomination process, which again, appears to be a task that will take several days or even weeks to perform. Also, while this user may not be aware of the copyright infringement inherent in these uploads (they haven't responded on their talk page yet to my speedy nominations and per their User contributions page have not contributed since 25 October 2014), the user may need to be blocked for the time being to prevent further copyvios from occurring and due to the extensive nature of the occurrences. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:12, 31 October 2014 (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 ==
	: Am I missing something? All the ones that I checked were logos marked as non-free. I don't see a problem with those, as long as their use is otherwise NFCC-compliant. The uploader has merely been using that third-party website as a source, but wasn't citing it as an alleged copyright holder. Using third-party sources for non-free items may or may not be okay in terms of factual reliability (depends on the site), but does't present a copyright issue as long as it's clearly understood that the copyright belongs to the organization in question, not the third-party site. ] ] 14:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
			{{atop
			| status = Forum shopping
			| result = Duplicate of ]. Please discuss there. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 16:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	::]: An inherent problem is that http://stuffled.com does not state having permission to host such content. Per ], criteria #4 (part of the ] page), "Non-free content must be a work which has been published or publicly displayed outside Misplaced Pages by (<u>or with permission from</u>) the copyright holder, or a derivative of such a work created by a Misplaced Pages editor" (underline emphasis mine). This creates problems of ], in which Misplaced Pages is potentially contributing to the infringing acts of others, particularly because Stuffled does not claim copyright or ownership of the images and does not state that it has permission to host them. Additionally, pinging ] to this discussion, as I notice they have been deleting the files en masse (see for this user). ]<sup>]</sup> 15:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
			}}
			Dear Wikipedians,
	:: I agree with Northamerica1000, and that's why I started deleting the files. It's no different from linking to copvio YouTube videos. I will stop for now pending further input. -- ] (]) 15:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::Actually there could be a serious problem. The latest contributions appear to be SVGs, which present the (yet-resolved by case law) problem of both the image being copyrighted and the SVG (an extension of XML) code being copyrighted, which could be different. In case, a spot check of the contributions show many of the SVGs images would fail US's threshold of originality, but the SVG used to create that may ''not'' be. If these same logos were recreated by a WP user as SVG, they would clearly be PD-logo free, but whomever made the original SVG likely holds the copyright on the SVG part of the code. (To note: it is believed from law that the SVG code behind an image is a unique copyright over the image itself, though it's also unclear because most people do not write out SVG by hand but as a mechanical interpretation of the drawing from their program of choice (eg no new creativity in making the SVG file), though it is completely possible do hand code SVG.). I would definitely think that most of these should be removed to allow WP editors like at the GL recreate them instead or otherwise just use JPG/PNG.
	::I will say if these were JPG and PNG and the site was just hosting the images, and we could easily find the original images from elsewhere, ideally on the respective company's website, deleting the images due to being sourced to stuffled is not really appropriate since the issue can be fixed. --] (]) 15:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Some of the articles he/she added images to already had valid images present, and they're still available on the WP servers, but obviously the image usage bot will start tagging them and then deleting them. Perhaps a bot run to replace the status quo image before this user added their version would be a good first move, and save a lot of duplicate work. - ] (]) 15:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	:Indeed, we need to fix this in a hurry. Not only does this leave a trail of missing logos, but there's now a danger of the valid logos starting to get tagged and removed as orphan non-free images. This seems very unlikely to be a copyright problem in the first place. I'm still working through whether this is a NFCC problem, as the issue appears to have been discussed extensively on WP on various pages already. - ] (]) 15:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::The missing logos can be recovered by following the user's contributions. I found one instance, ], where the user removed a free-to-use image from the Commons and replaced it with a non-free image. Another article, ], did not have a logo when the user arrived. I have uploaded a png image for that one. The step we need to do first is to decide whether or not the svgs from Stuffled.com need to be deleted, and then we can move on to the second step of adding logos to the involved articles. The user uploaded 1,317 images altogether, according to X!'s Tools. I will be out most of the day and will check back here when I can so that I can get involved in the clean-up. - ] (]) 16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::Okay, most of the discussions I found about the appropriateness of SVG were pre-2010, and were on other issues such as the misguided notion that SVG should be avoided because it is scalable creates the impression of being higher in quality than a PNG (a matter contradicted by the wording of ]. The few that address whether an SVG obtained from a third party site could have a separate copyright as a derivative work were inconclusive. There isn't a whole lot of support in the archives I looked through for the proposition that logos obtained from repositories are rejected on the basis that those sites are not from the copyright owner. Logos don't follow the same logic as copyrighted images, art, music, etc., where there is a single source for each work. Presumably all of these logos come from the brand owner in one way or another. Any decision to start deleting old logos based on a new NFCC theory would need a more thorough discussion and then a workable process to implement. However, in this case it's a user who recently (over the past month or two) made a bunch of mass edits to replace old png logos with new SVG logos, apparently found on a site somewhere. It's reasonable to ask them to stop. The next steps, logically, would be to have a discussion about it, and then decide whether to roll all of this back or not. Has the user been notified of this discussion? I don't see any actual human-generated prose on their talk page about this issue, just a bunch of templates and bot-generated notices (which they appear to have unwisely ignored). - ] (]) 16:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::The uploader of the images was notified about this discussion at 13:13, 31 October 2014, one minute after the discussion herein was created. (). ]<sup>]</sup> 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{edit conflict}} A computer font may be copyrightable in the United States as computer software, see ] An SVG file seems to be similar to a computer font in many aspects and may therefore presumably also be copyrighted as computer software. The software aspects of the SVG file need to be creative in some way in order to meet the ]. I am not sure how to figure out if any given SVG file meets the threshold of originality as computer software. An SVG file is also a text document, and there may also be things in the source code which are separately copyrighted as text. As it is not well documented on Misplaced Pages how to determine if an SVG file meets the threshold of originality as computer software or not, it may be better to list such files at ] instead of speedying them as F9.
	::::If you find a copyrighted computer software stored in some other vector format (say, EPS or TTF), then you may not simply convert the file to SVG format as this is then a derivative work of the original computer software. --] (]) 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Notifying ] about this discussion, since they deleted ], a file I nominated for speedy deletion, along with others uploaded by the user. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
			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.
	::Honestly, the legal arguments seem rather overwrought. For slavish copies of company logos ] would seem likely to apply regardless of the origin or SVG issues. That said, I agree that NFCC seems to require that the images either come directly from the original copyright holder or be derivations "created by a Misplaced Pages editor" (and not versions created by a random third-party on the internet). In a case like this that restriction probably isn't required legally, but it isn't totally irrational from a precautionary perspective either. So yeah, it seems as though removing these logos is the right course of action under existing NFCC policy. ] (]) 18:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
			I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.
	I'm with Future Perfect. The logos have been "published" by the holder, thus NFCC is satisfied - they have literally made known to the world what their logo is. The appearance issue of whether it is in fact what the logo looks like is not an NfCC issue. ] (]) 13:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
			Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.
	: Just a note that {{u|Diannaa}} went on and mass deleted a large number of logos, even if they were used under fair-use criteria or even ineligible for copyright protection, not waiting for the outcome of this discussion. This action has forced many editors to waste time correcting the resulting redlinks, reuploading and re-tagging logos, etc. A few folks (including me) have expressed displeasure over this on Diannaa's usertalk page. Please would let someone address his/her overzealousness? <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;">] ]</span> 20:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	::You have mistaken the sequence of events. The deletions were underway when the discussion started. As soon as I realized there was an objection to what I was doing, I stopped. I will restore logos to all the affected articles, whether the decision is to restore the svg files or to seek out and use the logos that were previously in use on the articles before Patrick O'Canada started replacing logos. Either way, I apologise for undertaking the work hastily and without seeking advice before beginning. -- ] (]) 20:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	::: OK, thanks :) <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;">] ]</span> 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
			Thankyou! ]] 15:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	It looks to me like the strongest policy-based reasoning so far is that the files should not be hosted on this wiki. One more point: I wonder why the uploader's exclusive interest on this wiki is to upload logos from this one website. Is he trying to drive traffic to that site? In other words, it it a subtle form of link spam? I won't be deleting any more of his uploads for the time being, but I am going to start restoring the png files that were in previously place on the affected articles, if no one posts any objections. -- ] (]) 12:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC) Actually, I've decided to go ahead and get started on this. We can always restore the svg files later if that's what people decide is the best course of action. -- ] (]) 13:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC) I've found quite a few instances where he removed free-to-use logos from the Commons and replaced them with his own file. Some of his corporate logos were out-of-date. -- ] (]) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (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 ==
	== ] ==
			{{atop
			| result = Globally locked accounts may not have local blocks, but still cannot edit. —&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 19:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			}}
			] is labeled as a blocked sockmaster on their user page, and all of ] are blocked, but the master seems to be to not be actually blocked. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 18:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Someone (anonymous IP 77.96.230.11) is about the Rothschild dynasty which is . He/she is desperate and now makes unfounded (personal) attacks of "antisemitism" (sic.) This person has lost the "battle" of arguments now he/she is trying ] and this is forbidden on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			: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 ==
	*Is it me, or does it look like you are the only one that wants that material included, and two editors have reverted you? Per ], the burden is on YOU to go to the talk page and present your case for inclusion, then get a consensus to include the material. Or if you can't, live with it as is. ] - ] 00:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
			{{hat|1=Global block evasion. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			{{atop|1=We are done here. - ] <sub>]</sub> 05:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			This ] is sabotaging some editions Like and and . Specially one Which mentioned with significant sources. thanks for the corporation ] (]) 04:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Hi everyone.
	*This has been handled elsewhere, thus can be closed. ] - ] 17:28, 2 November 2014 (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)
	::Actually it seems is the one controversial editor who is trying to edit the stable version, as can be found ... and he/she has been reverted REPEATEDLY , and again . You got it backwards! :) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			:::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)
	:After looking at it rather more closely than I intended, I've discussed it on the talk page under the existing thread ] and deleted the paragraph. I understand why editors have restored an apparently sourced paragraph in the face of such brief claims of antisemitism, but the objections are valid. I hope we can discuss what if anything of that paragraph should be retained on the talk page rather than in edit comments. ] (]) 21:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
			{{abot}}
			{{hab}}
	== Backlog breaking transclusions ==
	Hi,
	Massive backlog at ]. Can we get some mops applied please. ] (])(]) 10:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	:It's business as usual at ]. Thanks Amortias, but could you possibly be more specific about what's breaking transclusions? Pete AU aka --] (]) 11:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Same as previous post further up the page(probably should have referenced it). When some of these get backlogged it breaks the transclusions of the admin dashboard template. ] (])(])
	== Note: ] soft-blocked ==
	Following discussion at ], this address has been temporarily soft-blocked. Should this block cause any issues that are more impacting than were being caused please revert without consultation, and leave a note at ]. Thank you, — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
	:{{done}} This issue has been resolved, ip block removed. — ] <sup>]</sup> 22:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Banned from IRC? ==
	Apparently my IRC nick (GeorgeEdwardC) has been banned from numerous IRC channels. I'd like to question this, since I did absolutely '''nothing'''. I'm banned from {{irc|wikipedia}}, {{irc|cvn-wp-en}}, {{irc|wikidata}}, and I'm not sure why. It could be my IRC provider, and it might not be. '''] &ndash; ] &ndash; ]''' 17:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	*Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with IRC, we have no authority there and it isn't under the control of the Foundation. You would need to talk to someone there. I know, that might not seem obvious, but really, we aren't affiliated in any way. ] - ] 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:So... Where can I contact said people? It appears I'm only banned from WMF channels, except #cvn-simplewikis, strangely. '''] &ndash; ] &ndash; ]''' 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::You are not banned from IRC. The IRC client you were connecting with has been banned from our channels due to it repeatedly being used abusively by others. If you connect with another client, you should be fine. For future reference, however, questions about IRC bans, etc should be asked on the #wikimedia-ops channel on IRC. You're much more likely to find someone who's able to answer your question there than on a noticeboard onwiki. ] (]) 19:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Hi George, ] has set you a ban exemption for your NickServ account for the #wikipedia channel and I have just set you one for the #wikidata channel. If you identify to your NickServ account, you should be able to join both these channels. If you can't join, poke either Rjd (RD on freenode) for #wikipedia or if you can't join #wikidata, poke me (JohnLewis on freenode) and we'll resolve it for you. Thanks, ] (]) 19:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	==Authority to topic ban?==
	An admin can topic ban a user at their own discretion if and only if discretionary sanctions have been authorized for the topic; see the banning policy's section . If there are no DS, topic bans can only be done via consensus on AN/ANI, which is in practice pretty difficult to achieve, even in cases where … well, never mind, forgot what I was going to say. Anyway.
	I bring this up in relation to a situation where I have blocked a user for two weeks for personal attacks and battleground editing on and around a certain article. The user has requested unblock and unambiguously offered to stay away from the topic for six months in return for being unblocked to work in other areas: "I would like to be unblocked on the condition that I stay away from and related pages (for at least 6 months)." My whole TLDR block rationale and all details can be found and the complete unblock request , but they don't really matter, as this is a question of principle. I would like to comply with the request, but I would need to be sure of the status of such a topic ban. I need it to be as tight as a T-ban as defined at ]; the user's proposal is made in good faith, no doubt, but I still don't want to end up with an unenforceable ban. Can the user's own offer give me the authority to topic ban them, which I don't otherwise have per ]? I hope so; it would presumably make the user happy, and me also. In any case I'm not going to request a community topic ban, it's too much of a hassle and timesink and would make far fewer people happy. ] &#124; ] 20:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
	:In theory, no, in practice, it's not that uncommon for a user to accept an informal ban in order to get unblocked. Given the user has suggested the condition, I don't think community ban discussion would be that big a deal -- don't see why anyone would oppose it. <small>]</small> 21:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:From my experience, any sanction given as a condition of unblock is an enforceable sanction, as long as the user agrees to it before being unblocked. Because they are voluntarily accepting it, you are just acting on behalf of the community by inacting it Like all admin actions, it would be subject to review and the community could override or revert your decision, but again, that is true of everything you do as admin. This would be a self-imposed sanction in lieu of remaining blocked. If you KNOW the community would accept it, then there is no controversy and you are just saving the time of the community. Just as when you block a vandal, you know the community would vote to block them. While it isn't written down in policy this plainly, the spirit of policy supports it, so ] backs you. It isn't extremely common, but it is done somewhat regularly for serial edit warring and the like. I would log it like any other tban. ] - ] 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
			== Merry Christmas! ==
	:While I agree with ] above (technically no, in practice yes), I bet we can get community consensus that any topic ban voluntarily accepted as a condition of being unblocked is authorized by the community (maybe with some maximum time limit). That would solve it in theory as well going forward. --] (]) 22:18, 2 November 2014 (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)}}
			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)
	:I don't think this is tested frequently enough to be confident that the analysis by Dennis would always apply—my feeling is that a wikilawyer could justifiably say that an unblock cannot include a logged topic ban. However, it's a model unblock request and I recommend simply accepting it with a request that the user follow their offer to stay away from the topic for six months. There is no need to point out there would probably be a bad outcome if there were a future problem regarding the topic in less than six months. That is, a voluntary offer accepted with an unblock is as good as a topic ban in practice. ] (]) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
			{{Abot}}
			== suggestion ==
	: {{U|Bishonen}} should not worry that much about an unenforceable ban. What if {{U|Elvey}} happens to make a positive contribution to that topic? The user may be playing with fire, but it is possible; would an administrator block because of positive contributions? Let the user make a disruptive edit and the decision will be easier. ] (]) 00:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
			{{Atop|This complaint has no merit.--] (]) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)}}
			Suggestion of temporary block of User:ActivelyDisinterested
	As a practical matter you can warn an editor not to do X, because you are afraid that if they do X, they will get themselves into trouble. If the editor then does X in a harmless way, you ignore it, but if they do anything slightly malicious, you can be very strict. Effectively, this functions like a topic ban, but I recommend not calling that or you'll get people riled. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
			As user add incorrect information, comment wrong behavior edit with not reliable sources.
			Thanks ] (]) 15:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	: {{U|Bishonen}} unblock away. The agreement isn't going to be binding as a topic ban though. Blocks are for short term disruption. "Promising to end the disruption by staying away from the topic area" is an unnecessary added condition to just "promising to end the disruption." On it's face, it appears that the editor is offering more but in reality is offering less ("I won't edit war or personal attack in that Topic Area"). Really, the unblock should happen on a general promise to stop disruption and the bar for reblock would be very low for the behavior, not the topic. Don't even bother with the topic area as it's really just a reason to appeal a future block for the same behavior in a different area. I like the idea of the conditional topic ban offer and it should be tracked so that future disruption is a very low hurdle but in the end it's a simple block for disruption. --] (]) 01:38, 3 November 2014 (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)
			: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)
			: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? ==
	::], the user offered to stay away altogether from the topic area for at least six months. The other things they wrote — I'll AGF, I'll be civil, etc — clearly referred to their future editing ''elsewhere''. (The small topic area we're talking about is far from being the user's only interest on Misplaced Pages). Anyway, I've offered them an unblock on the conditions they themselves suggested. Thank you all for your input, it was helpful. Going to bed now. ] &#124; ] 01:52, 3 November 2014 (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)}}

---

Latest revision as of 04:44, 25 December 2024

Notices of interest to administrators

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

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

Centralized discussion

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

Noticeboard archives

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

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	12	12
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	1	18	19
RfD	0	0	9	40	49
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

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

ZebulonMorn

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

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

---

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

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

@Deepfriedokra: Some examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal of my topic ban

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

(1) The topic ban is not repealed.

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by uninvolved editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I use alts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_o_
 |   <--- Spider-Man
/ \

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

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

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples: HJ Mitchell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples: 331dot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Okay. Here we go.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for closure review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request removing creation block at Alpha Beta Chi

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

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

---

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

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

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

Hello, Naraht,

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

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

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

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

Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to Shavian alphabet

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

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

From the article.

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

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

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

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

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

Call for decisive admins to clear backlog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the community expects, or what you expect?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

  
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-requested RM relist review

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

"Early" closes at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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. JJP_Master (she/they) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

{{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}}

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.

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

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

---

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Montenegro

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

Add to wikidata.

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

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

Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.

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

Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Louisiana

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Massachusetts

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Maryland

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Illinois

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania

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

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

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

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

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

Blatant vandalism

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass rollbacking my bot

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Question about Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Small technical question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit war with User:Mellk vs User:Rnd90

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Dubai chocolate

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

PayPal Honey edit warring

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concern About Vandalism by a New Contributor

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

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

---

Dear Wikipedians,

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

I believe your experience could help address this situation effectively.

Looking forward to your advice on how to proceed.

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

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

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

Supposedly blocked editor appears unblocked

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

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

---

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

My comment seems broken. The wikitext is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

subversion

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

Merry Christmas!

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) Category:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards